JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.9.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that ASI Ram Lal (PW9), HC Raj Pal, HHC Hem Raj (PW8), LC Uma Devi and HHG Kapil Sharma were going towards Tilla Bridge on 12.4.2011, at about 2.30 PM. They s aw the accused coming from Thanagarh towards Tilla Bridge on foot. She returned after seeing the police party. She had a black bag (Ex. P2) in her right hand. She threw the bag and started running away. The police apprehended her with the help of LC Uma Devi. Gautam Ram (PW1) and Ses Ram (PW5) came from Thanagarh. They were apprised of the circumstances and were requested to become witnesses. They agreed to become witnesses. The police picked up the bag and inquired about the accused's name. She revealed her name as Neelma Devi. She could not give any satisfactory reason for throwing the bag. The police opened the bag and found Charas (Ex.P3) inside it. The police weighed the charas and found its weight to be 2 kg. Charas was put in the bag, the bag was tied with a knot and it was placed in a cloth parcel (Ex. P1). The parcel was sealed with six impressions of seal ‘T’. Sample seal ‘T’ (Ex.PW8/A) was taken on separate pieces of cloth. NCB-1 form (Ex.PW2/C) was filled and the seal impression was put. on the form. The seal was handed over to HHC Hem Raj after the use. The photographs of the spot (Ex.PW8/B1 and Ex.PW8/B2) were taken. The charas was seized vide memo (Ex.PW8/C). Rukka (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared and it was handed over to HHC Hem Raj with a direction to carry it to the Police Station. on the form. The seal was handed over to HHC Hem Raj after the use. The photographs of the spot (Ex.PW8/B1 and Ex.PW8/B2) were taken. The charas was seized vide memo (Ex.PW8/C). Rukka (Ex.PW4/A) was prepared and it was handed over to HHC Hem Raj with a direction to carry it to the Police Station. FIR (Ex.PW4/B) was registered in the Police Station. ASI Ram Lal (PW9) conducted the investigation on the spot. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/A) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ex.PW9/D) and gave the arrest information to the daughter-in-law of the accused. He produced the case property before SI Surinder Pathak (PW4), who resealed the parcel with three impressions of seal ‘N’. He obtained the seal impression ‘N’ on the NCB-I form. He handed over the case property and the documents to HC Ramesh (PW2) who made an entry at Serial No. 52 (Ex.PW2/A) and deposited the case property in malkhana. He handed over the case property to HHC Bahadur Singh (PW3) on 15.4.2011 along with NCB-I form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, FIR, sample seals ‘N’ and ‘T’ with a direction to carry them to FSL, Junga vide RC No. 44/2011 (Ex.PW2/B). HHC Bahadur Singh deposited all the articles at FSL, Junga and handed over the receipt to MHC Ramesh Kumar on his return. ASI Ram Lal prepared the special report (Ex.PW6/A) and handed it over to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu. Additional Superintendent of Police made the endorsement on the special report and handed it over to his Reader HC Harbans (PW 6) on 13.4.2011 at 3.00 PM. HC Harbans made an entry in the relevant register at Serial No.23 (Ex.PW6/B) and retained the special report with him. The result of analysis (Ex.PW4/D) was issued in which it was shown that the exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas which contained 23.7% w/w resin. Statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the Court. 3. The accused was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. 3. The accused was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Gautam Ram (PW1) and Ses Ram (PW5) are the independent witnesses to the recovery. HC Ramesh (PW2) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HHC Bhader Singh (PW3) carried the case property to FSL Junga. SI Surender Pathak (PW4) signed the FIR and resealed the case property. HC Harbans (PW6) was posted as a Reader to the Additional Superintendent of Police to whom the status report was handed over. ASI Yashwant (PW7) recorded the statement of one witness. HHC Hem Raj (PW8) is the official witness of recovery. ASI Ram Lal (PW9) effected the recoverry and conducted the investigation. 5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC denied the prosecution case in its entirety. She stated that the police came to her house at noon. Nothing was recovered from the house. After some time, one police official brought a pithu containing charas from a grass shed. It was taken to the Police Station and a false story was concocted against her. No defence was sought to be adduced by the accused. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory. The report of analysis was not as per law. Hence, the accused was acquitted. 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The testimonies of official witnesses were discarded for untenable reasons. There was no enmity between the police and the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. We have heard Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. It was duly proved by the testimonies of official witnesses that the accused was found in possession of 2 kilograms of charas. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. It was duly proved by the testimonies of official witnesses that the accused was found in possession of 2 kilograms of charas. Nothing was shown against the official witnesses and their testimonies could not have been discarded merely on the basis that independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same. 11. We have given considerable thought to the submissions and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, that the Court can interfere with an order of acquittal if the judgment suffers from patent perversity or misreading of evidence or omission to consider the material on record. It was observed: 36. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial Court. 37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar1 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below:— “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : ( Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its conclusion, both on questions of fact and law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proven guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka 2023 (9) SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows:— “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:— (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclinedH to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 13. Independent witnesses did n ot support the prosecution case. Gautam Ram (PW1) stated that the police searched the house of the accused for about two hours. Nothing was recovered from the house. The police recovered charas from a cow/grass shed having no door. The police directed the accused and Jaiwanti to accompany them but the minor son of Jaiwanti started weeping. The police directed her to look after her son and took the accused with them. A similar statement was made by Ses Ram (PW5). They were permitted to be cross-examined but they denied the previous statements recorded by the police. Hence, it is apparent that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 14. The police directed her to look after her son and took the accused with them. A similar statement was made by Ses Ram (PW5). They were permitted to be cross-examined but they denied the previous statements recorded by the police. Hence, it is apparent that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 14. The police have filed a memo (Ex.PW1/A) regarding the search of the house of the accused stating that no narcotic was found during the search; hence memo of non-recovery was prepared. This memo is signed by the witnesses Gautam Ram (PW1), Ses Ram (PW5) and Jaiwanti. No explanation for this memo was provided by the police officials. HHC Hem Raj (PW8) denied in his cross-examination that police had raided the house occupied by the accused and her son in the presence of Ses Ram (PW5) and Gautam Ram (PW1). He denied that the accused and her daughter-in-law were present in the ho use along with the children. He denied that no recovery of narcotics was found and the bag of charas was found in a cowshed located at some distance. A similar statement was made by ASI Ram Lal (PW9) in his cross-examination. When both the official witnesses have denied that any search of the house of the accused was conducted, there is no explanation for the preparation of the memo (Ex.PW1/A) and the explanation provided by the independent witnesses has to be accepted as correct that the search of the house of accused was conducted during which no recovery was effected. 15. ASI Ram Lal (PW9) stated in his cross-examination that he had conducted the proceedings while sitting on the path where the accused was nabbed. Whereas, HHC Hem Raj (PW8) stated that the proceedings were conducted by sitting in a double-storeyed house of Khoob Ram located in an orchard near the spot. The proceedings were conducted while sitting on the veranda of the house and sitting on the planks. Thus, the witnesses have given inconsistent versions regarding the place where the search and proceedings were conducted. 16. The police took the photographs (Ex.PW8/B1 and Ex.PW8/B2) during the investigation. The photograph (Ex.PW8/B1) shows that the charas were being weighed in one plastic bag. When the parcel was opened in the Court during the examination of HHC Hem Raj (PW8), it was found to containing a bag (Ex.P2) and charas (Ex.P3). 16. The police took the photographs (Ex.PW8/B1 and Ex.PW8/B2) during the investigation. The photograph (Ex.PW8/B1) shows that the charas were being weighed in one plastic bag. When the parcel was opened in the Court during the examination of HHC Hem Raj (PW8), it was found to containing a bag (Ex.P2) and charas (Ex.P3). There is no explanation as to what happened to the polythene visible in the photograph. This casts doubt regarding the integrity of the case property. 17. The learned Trial Court also held that the report was not as per the judgment of this Court in case titled Sunil Vs. State 2010 HLJ 207 . However, this judgment has been overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in case titled State of H.P. vs. Mahboon Khan 2014 Crim.L.J.705 . Thus, this finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 18. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the prosecution evidence was not satisfactory and the accused could not have been convicted based on such evidence. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken based on the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court. No interference is required with the same while deciding an appeal against acquittal merely because some other view is possible. 19. No other point was urged. 20. In view of the above, there are no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 21. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.