JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 1.6.2022 and sentence order dated 06.06.2022, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Case No. NDPS:200040 of 2012, whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Section Sentence 1. 20 of ND&PS, Act Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year. 2. 15 of ND&PS, Act Rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case as set up by the prosecution was that during the intervening night between 12.03.2012 and 13.03.2012, Police officials HC Deva Nand (PW-10), HC Shaukat Ali (PW-1), C. Som Parkash (PW-2) and C. Ravinder Singh of Police Post Nakrod (Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P.) had laid a picket (Nakka), at place Gununalla. At about 2:30 AM, on 13.03.2012, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. PB-02-E-5656 was stopped at the ‘Nakka’. Three persons namely, Harvinder Singh, Chandan (appellant) and Jasbir Kaur, were found occupying the vehicle. Harvinder Singh was at the driving wheel, appellant was occupying front passenger seat and Jasbir Kaur was on the rear seat of the vehicle. Police entertained suspicion and gave an option to the occupants of the car to get their persons searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The occupants of the car opted to be searched by the police party. 3. The police officials present on the spot offered their personal search. The vehicle was thereafter subjected to search. A cloth bag was found on the rear seat of the vehicle alongwith Jasbir Kaur. On opening of the cloth bag another white coloured cloth bag was found from which 1 Kg 800 Grams of ‘Charas’ was recovered. One paper packet was found on the dash board of the vehicle from which 20 Grams of ‘Poppy Straw’ was recovered. 4. The preliminary investigation was carried. Relevant columns of NCB form were filled, recovered articles were seized and sealed. ‘Rukka’ was prepared and sent to Police Station. FIR was registered. The accused persons were formally arrested. One paper packet was found on the dash board of the vehicle from which 20 Grams of ‘Poppy Straw’ was recovered. 4. The preliminary investigation was carried. Relevant columns of NCB form were filled, recovered articles were seized and sealed. ‘Rukka’ was prepared and sent to Police Station. FIR was registered. The accused persons were formally arrested. The seized contraband alongwith accused persons and other collected evidence were presented before SHO Police Station, Tissa, who after completion of resealing proceedings deposited the contraband alongwith other evidence in the ‘Malkhana’ of Police Station. 5. The contraband was got chemically analyzed from SFSL, Junga, and were found to be samples of ‘Charas’ and ‘Poppy Straw’ respectively. 6. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against all the accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 20 and 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. 7. Learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 40/12, vide judgment dated 26.09.2012, acquitted all the accused persons for offence under Section 20 of ND&PS Act, however, convicted them for offence under Section 15 of ND&PS Act. All the accused persons were sentenced to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. Since, the convicts had already remained in judicial custody from 16.03.2012 onwards, their period of detention already undergone was ordered to be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed against them. 8. The State of Himachal Pradesh assailed judgment passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., before this Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2013. Vide judgment dated 22.12.2016, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal of the State. The judgment dated 26.09.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., was quashed and set aside. The case was remanded back to learned Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 9. Harvinder Singh appeared before learned Special Judge, Chamba, H.P. to face the trial after remand, whereas the appellant and Jasbir Kaur did not appear and were declared proclaimed offenders. The trial against Harvinder Singh was concluded and he was acquitted of all charges by learned Special Judge(II), Chamba, vide judgment dated 01.06.2018. 9. Harvinder Singh appeared before learned Special Judge, Chamba, H.P. to face the trial after remand, whereas the appellant and Jasbir Kaur did not appear and were declared proclaimed offenders. The trial against Harvinder Singh was concluded and he was acquitted of all charges by learned Special Judge(II), Chamba, vide judgment dated 01.06.2018. Subsequently, the appellant was also arrested and was tried in pursuance to judgment dated 22.12.2016, passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2013. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as above. During the hearing of the appeal, this Court has been informed that the third accused Jasbir Kaur has died during the intervening period. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant deserves to be acquitted on the ground of parity as the co-accused Harvinder Singh with similar charges and identical evidence stands already acquitted by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., vide judgment dated 01.06.2018, passed in Sessions Trial No. 40/2012. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid judgment of acquittal has attained finality as the State of Himachal Pradesh has not assailed the same. 12. While admitting the factum as to finality attained by judgment of acquittal passed in favour of Harvinder Singh, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the acquittal of co-accused cannot be the only ground to acquit the appellant as the evidence available on record against appellant is to be independently assessed. According to him, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubts and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Prosecution has placed reliance on the testimonies of police officials. Admittedly, no independent witness was associated. 14. PW-10, HC Deva Nand alongwith PW-1 HC Shaukat Ali, PW-2 C. Som Parkash and C. Ravinder Singh had left the Police Post, Nakrod, at 12:15 AM, on 13. 03.2012 for patrol duty. Depositions to this effect had been made by PW-10 HC Deva Nand, PW-1 HC Shaukat Ali and PW-2 C. Som Parkash. In addition, a copy of DDR No. 12, dated 13.03.2012 of Police Post, Nakrod, has also been proved on record as Ext. PW-8/A by scribe of the document C. Suresh Kumar No. 421 (PW-8). 15. 03.2012 for patrol duty. Depositions to this effect had been made by PW-10 HC Deva Nand, PW-1 HC Shaukat Ali and PW-2 C. Som Parkash. In addition, a copy of DDR No. 12, dated 13.03.2012 of Police Post, Nakrod, has also been proved on record as Ext. PW-8/A by scribe of the document C. Suresh Kumar No. 421 (PW-8). 15. PWs No. 1,2 and 10 have been examined as the spot witnesses and their depositions have been uniform with respect to the mode and manner of recovery and seizure of contraband from the appellant and his co-accused. Their statements have also been in unison with respect to the investigation carried on spot. According to these witnesses, they had noticed Maruti Car No. PB-02E-5656, at around 2:30AM, at Gununalla. The occupants of the car were not able to satisfactorily explain the reason for their travel at such odd hours. Harvinder Singh was on driving seat and appellant was sitting on the front passenger seat. Jasbir Kaur was sitting on the rear seat and the rice bag was lying on the rear seat besides Jasbir Kaur. 16. On entertaining the suspicion, the police officials offered their personal search to the occupants of the car, vide memo Ext. PW1/A. Thereafter, the occupants of the car were given option to get their persons searched either before the gazetted officer or a Magistrate, to which an option was made by them to be searched by the police party itself vide memo Ext. PW1/B. 17. All the spot witnesses have deposed that the rice bag lying on the rear seat of the vehicle was searched. Another cloth bag of white colour was found inside and on opening of such bag, black coloured hard substance was found, which eventually turned out to be ‘Charas’ weighing 1 Kg 800 Grams. The ‘Charas’ was kept in the white coloured cloth bag from which it was recovered and the cloth bag was placed inside the rice bag. The rice bag was placed in a white cloth parcel which was sealed with five seals having impression ‘H’. Thereafter, 20 Grams of ‘Poppy Straw’ was recovered from a paper packet found on the dashboard of the vehicle, which was also sealed in white cloth parcel having seal impression ‘H’. Relevant columns of NCB form Ext. PW9/B were filled. Facsimile of seal impression ‘H’ was preserved on a separate piece of cloth Ext. Thereafter, 20 Grams of ‘Poppy Straw’ was recovered from a paper packet found on the dashboard of the vehicle, which was also sealed in white cloth parcel having seal impression ‘H’. Relevant columns of NCB form Ext. PW9/B were filled. Facsimile of seal impression ‘H’ was preserved on a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW1/C and its impressions were taken on NCB form Ext. PW9/B. Thereafter, recovery memo Ext. PW1/D was prepared. 18. PW-10 prepared ‘Rukka’ Ext. PW1/E and sent the same to Police Station, Tissa, through PW-1, HC Shaukat Ali, for registration of FIR. FIR Ext. PW4/A was registered at 7:15 AM on 13.03.2012. PW-1, HC Shaukat Ali, then brought the case file to the spot and handed it over to PW-10 HC Deva Nand, for further investigation. Harvinder Singh and appellant were arrested on the spot at 11:00 AM, vide arrest memo Ext. PW1/F and the information regarding their arrest was telephonically given to the persons of their choice. 19. PW-3, ASI Ravinder Singh alongwith LC Gaytri, who had been deputed to the spot for assisting in investigation, had formally arrested Jasbir Kaur at 11:00 AM on spot. 20. At about 5:15 PM on 13.03.2012, HC Deva Nand alongwith HC Shaukat Ali, C. Ravinder Singh and LC Gaytri, with all the arrested accused reached Police Station, Tissa. HC Deva Nand, forwarded the contraband alongwith accused persons to the SHO/SI Mohinder Singh (PW-9), who resealed the parcels containing ‘Charas’ with five seals having impression ‘T’ and parcel containing ‘Poppy Straw’ with three seals having impression ‘T’. The memo Ext. PW4/D in this regard was prepared and facsimile of seal impression ‘T’ was preserved on a separate piece of cloth as Ext. PW4/C. 21. PW-9 SHO/SI Mohinder Singh had handed over sealed parcels containing contraband to PW-4, HC Ashok Kumar, who was officiating as MHC of Police Station on the relevant day, to be kept in the safe custody of ‘Malkhana’. PW-4 deposited the parcels handed over to him alongwith allied pieces of evidence in the ‘Malkhana’ and entry to this effect was made in the ‘Malkhana’ register as PW4/B. 22. On 14.03.2012, PW-5 HC Avinder Singh, MHC Police Station handed over sealed parcels containing contraband to C. Rajesh Kumar. PW-6 alongwith other relevant documents, vide RC No. 31 of 2012 Ext. PW5/A for being delivered at SFSL, Junga. On 14.03.2012, PW-5 HC Avinder Singh, MHC Police Station handed over sealed parcels containing contraband to C. Rajesh Kumar. PW-6 alongwith other relevant documents, vide RC No. 31 of 2012 Ext. PW5/A for being delivered at SFSL, Junga. The safe custody of the contraband in the ‘Malkhana’ and its delivery and safe transit to SFSL, Junga, has duly been proved by PWs 4 to 6. 23. The SFSL, Junga, vide its report Ext. PX had found the samples analyzed by it to be that of ‘Charas’ and ‘Poppy Straw’, respectively. 24. As per spot witnesses, there was no feasibility of associating any independent witness on account of place of recovery being secluded and there being no habitation nearby. The defence has not been able to place on record any material to prove the contrary or otherwise. 25. The evidence in the shape of testimonies of police witnesses cannot be said to be suffering from any material contradictions, inherent improbabilities or embellishments as regards the recoveries made from the vehicle bearing number PB-02E-5656, however, learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., while acquitting Harvinder Singh, vide judgment dated 01.06.2018, has given him the benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that Harvinder Singh had the knowledge about the contents of rice bag lying on the rear seat of the vehicle or the paper packet lying on the dash board of the vehicle. Hence, the question as to application of same treatment to the appellant has arisen. 26. In Yanob Sheikh alias Gagu Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 6 SCC 428 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “24. In the present case, we are concerned with the merit or otherwise of the above reasoning leading to the acquittal of the accused Najrul. We are primarily concerned with the effect of this acquittal upon the case of the appellant-accused. The Trial Court in its judgment clearly stated that there was direct and circumstantial evidence against the accused implicating him with the commission of the crime. Finding the appellant guilty of the offence, the Trial Court punished him accordingly. Where the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, mere acquittal of one accused would not automatically lead to acquittal of another accused. Finding the appellant guilty of the offence, the Trial Court punished him accordingly. Where the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, mere acquittal of one accused would not automatically lead to acquittal of another accused. It is only where the entire case of the prosecution suffers from infirmities, discrepancies and where the prosecution is not able to establish its case, the acquittal of the co-accused would be of some relevancy for deciding the case of the other. 25. In the case of Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [ (2008) 11 SCC 425 ], this Court held as under: “13. Coming to the applicability of the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of large number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. However, where large number of other persons are accused, the court has to carefully screen the evidence: “51. … It is the duty of court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance in different jurisdiction in India, nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence’. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called ‘a mandatory rule of evidence’. (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.) Merely because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab.) The doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India, for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P.4 and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar.) An attempt has to be made to in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is discard the evidence in toto. (See Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P. and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab.) As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki8 normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and these are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorised. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so.” 26. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the acquittal of a co-accused per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of the other accused. The Court has to screen the entire evidence and does not extend the threat of falsity to universal acquittal. The Court must examine the entire prosecution evidence in its correct perspective before it can conclude the effect of acquittal of one accused on the other in the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 27. In light of above exposition though the acquittal of Harvinder Singh cannot be a ground per se to acquit the appellant, nonetheless, it cannot be forgotten that in the instant case there is no distinction between the evidence available against appellant and the evidence that was available against acquitted Harvinder Singh. The entire evidence remained the same which was placed on record by the prosecution before remand of the matter by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court to learned Trial Court. No fresh evidence was taken thereafter. As noticed above, the reason for acquittal of Harvinder Singh by learned Special Judge-II Chamba, has been the failure of prosecution to prove his exclusive possession or knowledge about the contraband being carried in the vehicle. Indisputably, the State of Himachal Pradesh has accepted such position by not assailing the judgment passed by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. It being so, can different parameters be applied in case of appellant faced with similar set of evidence? In our considered view, such an approach will lead to nothing but travesty of justice. Indisputably, the State of Himachal Pradesh has accepted such position by not assailing the judgment passed by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. It being so, can different parameters be applied in case of appellant faced with similar set of evidence? In our considered view, such an approach will lead to nothing but travesty of justice. The available evidence suggested that three persons occupied a car from which the contraband was recovered in the aforesaid manner. As in the case of Harvinder Singh, there also is no specific evidence that the appellant had any knowledge about the carriage of contraband in the vehicle, which admittedly was being driven by Harvinder Singh. Different parameters cannot be applied in the same set of evidence against the persons situated identically. 28. In Javed Shoukat Ali Qureshi Vs. The State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC 164 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” The same principle has again been applied by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a latter judgment in case of Ram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) SCC Online SC 170, in following manner:- “47. This Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, has held that when there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. This Court clarified as under: 15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” 29. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” 29. Learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of conviction against the appellant has failed to consider the above aspect of the matter. 30. In result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 01.06.2022 and sentence order dated 06.06.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (II), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Criminal Case No. NDPS:200040 of 2012, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 31. Necessary release warrants be immediately prepared and sent to the concerned Jail authorities without delay. 32. The appellant is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court strictly in terms of provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 33. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the miscellaneous pending application(s), if any. 34. Records be returned back to the learned trial Court forthwith.