JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘ND&PS Act’) by the learned Special Judge and, aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the instant appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., Inspector Baldev Thakur, the then S.H.O., Police Station, Darlaghat, LHC Kamla Devi, HHC Ram Lal, Constable Mast Ram and driver Sunil Kumar along with an official vehicle had set up a ‘naka’ at Darla Chowk. At about 11.30 p.m., an Alto Car (A/F) of black colour came from the Police Station, Darlaghat side which was singalled to stop and a gunny bag was found lying on the backseat of the car. On being asked, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Chaman Lal (respondent No.1) and another person occupying the front useat disclosed his name as Har Pal Singh (respondent No.2). They were asked to show the papers of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle agreed to show the documents but instead of showing the same, his driver i.e. respondent No.1 drove thhe vehicle towards Chhamla. The police party chased the vehicle with the official vehicle. At a place known as ‘Dori Ki Bawri’, when the police party was about to apprehend the vehicle, respondent No.2 threw the gunny bag out of the moving car. The said bag on search was found to be containing poppy straw. However, since no independent witness was available, therefore, HHC Ram Lal was deputed to bring scale from Darlaghat. Accordingly, HHC Ram Lal brought an electronic scale and then poppy straw that was recovered was weighed and found to be 15 Kg 600 grams. The gunny bag was packed in a white colour bag and sealed with 9 seals of capital ‘A’. NCB forms in triplicate were filled in on the spot. Facsimile of seal ‘A’ was taken on NCB form. Sample seal was separately taken on a piece of cloth and seal after use was handed over to LHC Kamla. Ruka was scribed and sent to the police station through HHC Ram Lal on the basis of which FIR No.31 dated 23.03.2010 was registered at Police Station, Darlaghat. The spot was inspected and site plan was accordingly prepared. The police party started the search for the vehicle as well as respondents. Ruka was scribed and sent to the police station through HHC Ram Lal on the basis of which FIR No.31 dated 23.03.2010 was registered at Police Station, Darlaghat. The spot was inspected and site plan was accordingly prepared. The police party started the search for the vehicle as well as respondents. The black colour Alto Caur was found parked outside the house of respondent Chaman Lal, who handed over the keys of the car to the police. When the car was opened, it was emitting smell of poppy straw and little dust of poppy straw was found to be lying on the bahckseat of the car. Respondent No.1 was arrested and he disclosed that the car was owned by Chinta Lal. The car was taken into possession by the police. The case property was deposited with the MHC. Special report of the case was sent to the SDPO, Darlaghat. Respondent No.2 was arrested on 02.05.2010. Documents of the vehicle were taken into possession by the police. The case property was sent to Laboratory for chemical examination and recovered poppy straw on chemical examination was opined to be sample of poppy straw. 3. After completion of the entire formalities, challan against the respondents was submitted in the Court. They were, later on, charged with the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the ND&PS Act on 02.04.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondents examined 16 witnesses in total and thereafter closed its evidence. The respondents were thereafter examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were afforded an opportunity to lead defence evidence, but they didu not examine any witness in defence. 5. The learned Special Judge after recording evidence and evaluating the same acquitted the respondents and aggrieved thereby the State has filed the appeal. 6. It is vehemently argued by Shri I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are totally perverse, whereas, the State had proved its case to the hilt. 7. On the other hand, Shri G.R.Palsra, Advocate, would argue that the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge below are in tune with the evidence that has come on record and, therefore, warrant no interference. 8. 7. On the other hand, Shri G.R.Palsra, Advocate, would argue that the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge below are in tune with the evidence that has come on record and, therefore, warrant no interference. 8. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to go through the evidence both oral as well as documentary that has been led by the prosecution. 9. LHC Kamla (PW-1) is a witness to the recovery. As per her statement, on 22.03.2010, a police party headed by SHO Baldev at about 11.00 p.m. had set up a ‘naka’ at Ambuja Chowk. At about 11.30 p.m., an Alto Car, A/F came from Police Station, Darlaghat side which was got stopped by the SHO. On being asked, the driver disclosed his name as Chaman Lal, whereas, another person sitting on the front seat disclosed his name as Harpal Singh. One jute gunny bag was foundu to be kept on the rear seat of that car. The SHO asked respondent Chaman Lal, to show the papers of the vehicle, who agreed to do so, but instead of showing the papers, he drove the vehicle towards Chhamla side. The police party chased thhe vehicle with official vehicle No. HP-14-7751. At ‘Dori Ki Bawri’ when the police party tried to apprehend the Alto Car, respondent Har Pal Singh threw the jute bag outside the vehicle. On search of that bag, it was found containing ‘Chura Post’ (poppy straw) which on weighment was found to be 15 Kg 600 grams. She also deposed about the carrying out of other proceedings on the spot and stated that seal after use was given to her. She further deposed that respondent Chaman Lal was found in village Rouri on 23.03.2010 during night and Alto Car was also found parked outside his house. The keys of that car were handed over to the police by respondent Chaman Lal. On opening of the car, it was found emitting smell of ‘Chura Post’. Some dust of ‘Chura Post’ was also lying on the rear seat of the car. The car was taken into possession by the police. 10. On being cross-examined, this witness stated that the police party chased the vehicle of the respondents upto village Rouri. PW-1 also stated that respondent Chaman Lal had met the police party near his house at village Rouri during night. The car was taken into possession by the police. 10. On being cross-examined, this witness stated that the police party chased the vehicle of the respondents upto village Rouri. PW-1 also stated that respondent Chaman Lal had met the police party near his house at village Rouri during night. She further stated that the police had not used the barricades to set up ‘naka’. PW-1 lastly stated thuat the Investigating Officer had recorded her statement at village Rouri. 11. HHC Ram Lal (PW-2) is another member of the police party. He supported the statement of PW-1 on all material points. Hhe also deposed about the delivery of the case property by him at FSL, Junga. On being cross-examined, he stated that the police party had used barricades to set up ‘naka’. He stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement and statement of LHC Kamla at ‘Dori Ki Bawri’ and lastly stated that the police party had stayed at village Rouri for about 30-45 minutes. 12. PW-3 Madan Lal deposed about providing of an electronic weighing machine to HHC Ram Lal. Dharam Pal (PW-4), Ramesh Kumar (PW-5), Chinta Lal (PW-6) and Ashwani Kumar (PW-7) have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. They were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State but nothing material could be elicited from their cross-examinations. 13. HHC Babu Ram (PW-8) stated that on 04.05.2010, respondent Har Pal took the police party to ‘Dori Ki Bawri’ and gave identification of the spot where he had thrown one gunny bag containing ‘Bhuki’ from Alto Car. 14. Constable Beli Ram (PW-9) had deposed about bringing of case propeurty and envelope from FSL, Junga. 15. H.C. Khem Singh (PW-10) had proved the copy of rapat No. 34-A Ext. PW10/A and copy of rapat No.5 Ext. PW10/B. 16. ASI Jagdish Chand (PW-11) proved the FIR Ext.PhW11/A and also proved his endorsement on ruka Ext. PW11/B. 17. PSI Swatantra Singh (PW-12) deposed that he had arrested respondent Har Pal on 02.05.2010. 18. H.C. Inder Singh (PW-13) deposed regarding carrying out partial investigation in this case and stated that on 04.05.2010, respondent Har Pal had taken the police party to the place of incident and had given identification of the spot. 19. H.C. Ranjeet Singh (PW-14) proved the Special Report Ext. 18. H.C. Inder Singh (PW-13) deposed regarding carrying out partial investigation in this case and stated that on 04.05.2010, respondent Har Pal had taken the police party to the place of incident and had given identification of the spot. 19. H.C. Ranjeet Singh (PW-14) proved the Special Report Ext. PW14/A and stated that SDPO Kuldeep Chand Rana had handed over Special Report of this case to him for being kept in the record. 20. H.C. Brij Lal (PW-15) stated that SHO Baldev Thakur had deposited the case property with him and he had made an entry to this effect in the ‘malkhana’ register. He further deposed about forwarding of the case property to FSL, Junga through HHC Ram Lal and proved the abstract of ‘malkhana’ register Ext.PW15/A and copy of R.C. Ext. PW15/B. 21. Inspector Baldev Thakur (PW-16) deposed about the investigation of the cause on similar lines as that of PW-1 and PW-2. In his cross-examination, he stated that the police party had not used barricades to set up ‘naka’. PW-16 also stated that he had not sent any police official to call any independent person from Petrol Phump that existed at Siyar Bazaar which remained open during night i.e. 24x7. 22. It would be noticed that the specific case of the prosecution is that the police party had set up ‘naka’ at Ambuja Chowk, Darlaghat, where the respondents came in an Alto Car at about 11.30 p.m. The car was got stopped for checking by PW-16 Inspector Baldev Thakur. The respondents were asked to show the documents of the car but instead of showing the documents, the respondents fled away from the spot along with the vehicle. 23. It has come in cross-examination of PW-2 that the police had used barricades to set up ‘naka’. If that be so, obviously, the learned Special Judge was right in observing that it was not understandable that if the police party had used the barricades, then how the respondents could run away from the spot. This assumes importance because it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondents had driven the vehicle from the spot by or after breaking the barricades or having run over them. This assumes importance because it is not the case of the prosecution that the respondents had driven the vehicle from the spot by or after breaking the barricades or having run over them. The story of the prosecution appears to be totally unbelievable and improbable because the responduents could not have run away from the spot along with the vehicle, especially, when the police had used the barricades to set up ‘naka’. 24. It is the case of the prosecution that there were four pohlice officials at the place of ‘naka’. In such circumstances, it is not believable that the respondents would have dared to run away from the spot along with the vehicle and, even if, they had fled, the police party could have conveniently apprehended them. 25. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 threw the gunny bag from moving car at a place known as ‘Dori Ki Bawri’. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that no independent witness was called by the Investigating Officer at the time of alleged recovery of the gunny bag. This fact again assumes importance because it has specifically come in the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-16) that there was a petrol pump at a short distance at Siyar bazaar which remained open during night. Not only this, if the prosecution could manage to get the weighing scales during midnight at 12.15 a.m., then nothing prevented them from associating independent witnesses and rather no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to have associated independent witnesses which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case. 26. Apart from above, there are material contradictions in the statements of theu police officials regarding setting up of ‘naka’, chasing of the vehicle of the respondents and arrest of respondent No.1 Chaman Lal. 27 (i). PW-1 stated in her cross-examination that the police pahrty had not used the barricades to set up ‘naka. But, PW-2 specifically stated that the police party had used barricades to set up ‘naka’. 27(ii). PW-1 stated that respondent Chaman Lal met police near his house at village Rouri on the road but PW-16 stated that Chaman Lal was called from his house. He stated that door of the house of Chaman Lal was knocked and he was called from his house. 27(iii). 27(ii). PW-1 stated that respondent Chaman Lal met police near his house at village Rouri on the road but PW-16 stated that Chaman Lal was called from his house. He stated that door of the house of Chaman Lal was knocked and he was called from his house. 27(iii). PW-1 stated that the Investigating Officer recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at village Rouri but PW-2 stated that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement as well as statement of LHC Kamla at ‘Dori Ki Bawri. 27(iv). PW-1 LHC Kamla stated that the police party had chased the vehicle of the respondents upto Rouri, whereas, the case of the prosecution is that the police party had chased the vehicle of the respondents only upto ‘Dori Ki Bawri’ where respondent No.2 had thrown the gunny bag from the moving vehicle. 27(v). PW-1 stauted that about 2-2.30 hours were spent by the police at village Rouri, whereas, PW-2 stated that only 30-45 minutes were spent by the police at village Rouri. 28. These contradictions assume greater importance and sihgnificance when no independent witnesses, though available, have been associated at the time of the alleged recovery. 29. Another intriguing fact which makes the entire prosecution case unreliable and highly doubtful is that if the respondents had fled away from the spot where ‘naka’ had been laid, then we see no reason why the police party should not have chased the vehicle of the respondents till the time they were not actually apprehended and why the police party simply stopped at ‘Dori Ki Bawri’ where respondent No.2 is alleged to have thrown jute sack containing poppy straw. Every reasonable police personnel would have continued chasing the respondents until apprehended. Further, the fact that it was the dead of the night and every reasonable person would contemplate and visualize that the respondents could be carrying something more than just 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw. 30. What makes the case of the prosecution more suspicious is the fact that even if the police party had any doubt that the sack containing poppy straw may not be available on the spot if they continued to chuase the respondents, even then, they could have conveniently left one person at the spot and thereafter proceeded to apprehend the respondents. What makes the case of the prosecution more suspicious is the fact that even if the police party had any doubt that the sack containing poppy straw may not be available on the spot if they continued to chuase the respondents, even then, they could have conveniently left one person at the spot and thereafter proceeded to apprehend the respondents. Even otherwise, there was no question of the sack of contraband being removed from the sphot because, as observed above, it was mid-night when alleged incident is stated to have taken place. 31. If this was not so sufficient, the Court finds it extremely difficult to believe and visualize that respondent No.2 would throw the sack at a place which could easily be seen by the police party with the lights of the vehicle and not thrown the same on a curve or other place where the beams of light of the vehicle being driven by the police party do not fall on the vehicle of the respondents to make it visible. After-all, the police party was allegedly chasing the vehicle of the respondents in a hilly terrain where lights of their vehicle would essentially all the time not fall on the vehicle being driven in front of their vehicle and there would be a breakout on the curves and bends especially. 32. Another circumstance that goes against the prosecution is that the evidence adduced by it is not sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the case property which was analyzed in the laboratory was the same that was recovered from the respondents. Exhibit PX is the report of the Laboratory wherein it is mentioned that the seuals on the gunny bag parcel were tallied with the seal impression sent by the SHO on form NCB-1 i.e. Ext. PW16/A. However, a perusal of Ext. PW16/A shows that facsimile of seal ‘A’ affixed on this form is not at all clear or legible. 33. Now, if the facsimile on Form Ext. PW16/A is not legible and clear, then it is not understandable how the seals affixed on the case property could be tallied with the facsimile of seal ‘A’ affixed on the NCB form Ext. PW16/A shows that facsimile of seal ‘A’ affixed on this form is not at all clear or legible. 33. Now, if the facsimile on Form Ext. PW16/A is not legible and clear, then it is not understandable how the seals affixed on the case property could be tallied with the facsimile of seal ‘A’ affixed on the NCB form Ext. PW16/A. This assumes importance because it has not at all been mentioned in the report that the seals on the gunny bag were compared with the sample seals or the sample seals were deposited in the laboratory along with the case property. 34. Thus, as rightly observed by the learned Special Judge, it cannot be said with certainty that the case property which was examined in the laboratory was the same which was allegedly recovered from the respondents. 35. Lastly and more importantly, it is the specific case of the prosecution that some dust of ‘Chura Post’ was lying on the rear seat of the car which car was then taken possession of by the police. If that be so, then why photographs of the ‘Chura Post’ that was stated to be lying on the rear seat of the car were not taken and, above all, why the so-called dust of ‘Chura Post’ was not sent for chemical analysis, is not at all forthcoming. Thus, there is no material on record whiuch may remotely suggest that the respondents had kept the jute bag containing ‘Chura Post’ on the backseat of the car and thereafter had thrown the same, as alleged by the prosecution. 36. It is trite that in appeal against acquittal, no interference is called for in case the view taken by learned trial Court is a possible one and its findings do not suffer from perversity. The accused always has a benefit of presumption of being innocent till proof of charges against him beyond reasonable doubts. The acquittal by the learned trail Court doubles the strength of such presumption. The view taken by the learned trial Court in the instant case is a possible view and is borne out from the material on record. It is also not a case of perversity. A detailed discussion in this behalf can be found in the recent judgment rendered by this Bench in Cr. Appeal No.81/2012 in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Prem Singh , decided on 07.12.2023. 37. It is also not a case of perversity. A detailed discussion in this behalf can be found in the recent judgment rendered by this Bench in Cr. Appeal No.81/2012 in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Prem Singh , decided on 07.12.2023. 37. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed, along with pending application, if any. 38. Records be sent back forthwith.