JUDGMENT : (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.) It is high time that the prosecution now comes up with a better story than the conventional cock and bull story that in the wee hours of the morning, the accused was spotted on the road at a distance of 15-20 meters and on seeing the police party, he got perplexed and tried to run away or threw his bag and thereafter the police party apprehended him and the contraband was recovered. 2. This Court has been noticing the cases with such type of foundation and in 99.9% cases that have come up before this Court, this is the plea which has been taken by the prosecution over the last four decades, especially from the time when the “ The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ” (for short ‘the Act’) has come into operation. 3. Even in the instant case, the foundation is no different as it is the case of the prosecution that on 11.05.2013 at about 2.30 p.m. Inspector Tenzin, Special Task Force, as per rapat Ext.PW-2/A, proceeded on patrol duty towards Sainj Ropa side. He was accompanied by Constable Joginder, Constable Nika Ram and Constable Nanak Chand. At about 3.45 a.m. when the police party was present at a place known as ‘Ghat Seri mod’, they spotted the respondent, who was walking with the help of a torch and got frightened and tried to run away, however, he was over-powered by the police officials. The respondent was carrying a bag in his right hand. His name and address was inquired into. The Investigating Officer suspected that the respondent was possessing some contraband in the bag. The I.O. associated Constable Joginder Singh and Constable Nanak Chand as witnesses and upon checking the bag of the respondent, found one another green colour bag containing charas which was in round and stick shape wrapped with transparent polythene paper. 4. The I.O. on the basis of experience, confirmed the recovered material to be charas and he accordingly prepared identification memo in this regard. Thereafter, the charas was weighed on electronic scale which was found to be five kilograms. 4. The I.O. on the basis of experience, confirmed the recovered material to be charas and he accordingly prepared identification memo in this regard. Thereafter, the charas was weighed on electronic scale which was found to be five kilograms. The recovered charas was again put in the same green colour bag, which was put in the same carry bag and sealed in a cloth parcel with eight seals of ‘R’ by the I.O. The I.O also filled in the relevant columns of the NCB forms in triplicate. The parcel was taken into possession vide recovery memo. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. The I.O. prepared the rukka and sent the same to the police station through Constable Joginder Singh along-with parcel of case property, sample seal and NCB-I form in triplicate and on the basis of rukka, FIR was registered by SHO Lal Singh. Thereafter, respondent was arrested by the I.O. The parcel of case property brought by Constable Joginder Singh was produced before SHO Lal Singh, who re-sealed the same and also filled in the relevant columns of NCB forms. He deposited the case property with MHC, who entered the same in the Malkhana register. 5. On 12.05.2013, MHC Gian Chand sent the case property along-with relevant documents to FSL Junga through Constable Chet Ram vide RC No.63 of 2013. During investigation of the case, FSL report was received. On the same day, the I.O. submitted the special report to the then Addl. S.P. During investigation, Hukmi Ram and Bal Mukand were also interrogated, but their involvement was not found. As such, on conclusion of the investigation challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 6. After finding a prima-facie case against the respondent for the commission of offence, charge for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication. An opportunity was afforded to the respondent to lead defence evidence. He availed such opportunity and examined two witnesses in his defence. 8. 7. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication. An opportunity was afforded to the respondent to lead defence evidence. He availed such opportunity and examined two witnesses in his defence. 8. As observed above, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, however, in order to ascertain the guilt of the accused, it is mainly the statements of PW-3 Constable Joginder Singh, PW-5 SI Lal Singh and PW-8 Inspector Tenzin, which are important and relevant. The statements of PW-3 and PW-8 are identical who in one voice stated that on 12.05.2013, they had gone towards Sainj on patrol along-with other police officials. In the morning, at about 3.45 a.m. when they reached near Sadat Mour Ghat Seri, the respondent was spotted by them who was carrying a bag in his right hand. On suspicion, the respondent was intercepted and his name and address were inquired. The respondent tried to run away after seeing the police party, so he was asked about the same, but he could not give any satisfactory reply. Consequently, the I.O., in the presence of Constable Nanak Chand and Constable Joginder Singh carried out the search of the bag which was being carried by the respondent and recovered the charas in question. The charas was black substance which was smelt by the I.O. and he then confirmed the same to be charas. The I.O. prepared memo of identification of the contraband Ext.PW-3/A. The said charas was weighed and found to be five kilograms. From the bag of the respondent, one green colour bag was recovered in which the respondent had kept the charas in question. The said charas was firstly put in the same green colour bag which was then put in the same carry bag and finally it was sealed in the cloth parcel with eight seals of letter ‘R’. Sample of seal ‘R’ was separately drawn which was Ext.PW-3/B. Sample parcel of charas was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW- 3/C. Thereafter, the I.O. prepared the rukka Ext.PW-8/A and sent the same along-with parcel of case property, NCB form, sample seal of ‘R’ and seizure memo to police station through Constable Joginder Singh, who in turn, deposited the same with SHO police station, Bhunter. 9. 9. Further, the I.O. deposed that he prepared the spot map Ext.PW-8/B and recorded the statements of witnesses. At 9.00 a.m. the respondent was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ext.PW-8/C. At 10.00 a.m. the I.O. received the case file on the spot and then recorded the statement of Constable Joginder Singh. Thereafter, all of them came to the Court to produce the respondent in the Court. He also prepared the special report Ext.PW-6/A and presented the same before Addl. S.P. Kullu. Both PW-3 and PW-8 identified the sealed parcel Ext.P-1, carry bag Ext.P-2, green colour bag Ext.P-3 and charas Ext.P-4 wrapped in the transparent polythene and stated the same to have been recovered from the respondent. 10. PW-5 SI Lal Singh deposed that he received rukka on 12.05.2013 which was brought by Constable Joginder Singh and he registered FIR Ext.PW-5/B. He put his endorsement Ext.PW-5/A on the rukka. He further deposed that Constable Joginder Singh had also brought the parcel of the case property sealed with eight seals of ‘R’ along-with sample seal, NCB form in triplicate and other relevant documents and re-sealed the said parcel with eight seals of letter ‘U’. Sample of seal ‘U’ was separately drawn which was Ext.PW-5/C. He filled in relevant columns of NCB form in triplicate, one of which was Ext.PW-5/D. He then handed over the case property to MHC Gian Chand. PW-5 further deposed that he received the report of chemical examiner Ext.PW-5/E and prepared the challan of the case. 11. It is in this background that the question arises as to why the respondent would be walking on the road, that too, in the wee hours of the morning, in case he was carrying the alleged contraband. This clearly appears to be a stereo type cock and bull story, as referred to above, given the fact that PW-3 Constable Joginder Singh would maintain that the police party had noticed presence of respondent despite darkness, that too, from a distance of 10-15 meters and above all, when it was pitch dark. This assumes importance when it is not the case of the prosecution that PW-3 Joginder Singh was having torch with him. The prosecution case, as set out, is then required to be examined for its credibility, which in the given facts and circumstances could have been better established by associating independent witnesses. 12. This assumes importance when it is not the case of the prosecution that PW-3 Joginder Singh was having torch with him. The prosecution case, as set out, is then required to be examined for its credibility, which in the given facts and circumstances could have been better established by associating independent witnesses. 12. We are fully conscious of the fact that such course may not be mandatory in every case, but looking into the evidence on record, it would have lent more credence and supported the prosecution case, especially when it has come on record in the statement of PW-3 that there was residential area at a distance of 300-400 meters from the spot and PW-8 the I.O. of the case had clearly admitted that there are houses near the spot. 13. Furthermore, the learned Special Judge had rightly expressed his suspicion regarding the case set up by the prosecution that the police party, despite availability of vehicle, had been patrolling the place in question on foot and did not even bother to lay a ‘Nakka’ on the road. Such a course could have only been possible in case the police team was having prior information regarding the respondent or possibility of some other person having contraband. 14. What further creates serious doubt in the prosecution case is the recovery of contraband. The I.O. would claim that he checked the bag of the respondent and found charas, which was round and stick shaped wrapped in a transparent polythene paper and when the charas in question was shown to him in the open Court, then he admitted that there was no round shaped charas in the carry bag Ext.P-3. Even the chemical examiner’s report Ext.PW-5/E only states about the charas to be in the form of poly wrapped sticks in the green colour bag. There was no mention of round shaped charas in the chemical examiner’s report. If the I.O. had noticed round shaped charas and recovered the same, then, this could not have vanished in thin air and does create a suspicion regarding the sealed parcel Ext.P-A having not been kept intact or having been tampered with, as rightly observed by the learned Special Judge. 15. If the I.O. had noticed round shaped charas and recovered the same, then, this could not have vanished in thin air and does create a suspicion regarding the sealed parcel Ext.P-A having not been kept intact or having been tampered with, as rightly observed by the learned Special Judge. 15. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove as to who had put the FIR number on the documents appended with the challan, as is evident from para 18 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- “18. Now testimony of PW8 I.O. Tenzin is relevant. In his cross-examination he has stated that when he had sent NCB form to the police station, then next proceedings were carried out by the SHO. Firstly he has stated that FIR number over NCB form were filled in by said SHO but he again stated that he did not remember by whom FIR number was filled in NCB forms as well as over parcel of charas Ex.P1. The perusal of NCB form Ex.PW5/D, sample of seal R and U Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW5/C as well as seizure memo Ex.PW3/C reveals that FIR number of the present case was mentioned as 46 of 2013. But neither L.O. as PW8 nor SHO Lal Singh as PW5 have stated that the said FIR over the aforesaid important documents were written by them. The I.O. had already sent the sealed parcel of charas Ex.P1 along with sample seal of R Ex.PW3/B and sample seal of U Ex.PW5/C as well as Clare memo Ex. PW3/C and NCB form Ex.PWS/D to the police station and thereafter all the said case property was deposited with the MHC by the SHO/SI PW5 Lal Singh. And MHC bad Subsequently sent it to the Chemical Examiner, therefore, there was no occasion for the 1.0. to have any access to the said case property including parcel Ex.P1, NCB form, seizure memo and sample seals. Then I fail to understand who has put FIR number over all the said important documents as well as sealed parcel Ex:P1: It is relevant to state that in all the documents except over sample of seal-U, FIR number has been mentioned with red in: whereas over sample of seal U,FIR number has been mentioned with blue ink. I have also personally perused the parcel Ex.P1, which bears FIR No.46 of 2013 with red ink. I have also personally perused the parcel Ex.P1, which bears FIR No.46 of 2013 with red ink. But there is nothing in the prosecution evidence to show that who mentioned FIR number on the aforesaid important documentary evidence.” 16. The aforesaid findings assume importance, given the fact that here is a case where the I.O. had sent the case property along-with other relevant documents to the police station with rukka, on the basis of which FIR came to be registered, but then, who put the FIR number on the relevant documents, is not forthcoming. The I.O. categorically stated that he does not know by whom FIR number was put on the aforesaid documents as well as sealed parcel Ext.P-1. 17. As observed by the learned Special Judge, this procedure raises a serious doubt about the fair investigation and does suggest that the samples of both seals ‘R’ and U’ as well as parcel Ext.P-1 containing the alleged contraband were not kept intact and possibility of its tampered with could not have been ruled-out and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 18. It is more than settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, that the more serious is the offence, the stricter the degree of proof is required. Since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. 19. Above all, the consistent stand of the prosecution as set forth by its witnesses is that they did not have any prior information, but to counter this version, the respondent examined Dy.S.P. Sanjay Sharma as DW-2 who in his examination-in-chief admitted that he had downloaded the news item pertaining to the recovery in this case from the official website of ‘Amar Ujala’ Ex.D-X dated 13.05.2013. He further admitted that contents of the news item Ext.D-X were correct and further went on to state that he had not contradicted any of the contents of this news item. When the news item was perused, it was clearly revealed that the police had acted upon prior information and thereafter intercepted the respondent with the charas in question. In such circumstances, the learned Special Judge had no option and had correctly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent. 20. When the news item was perused, it was clearly revealed that the police had acted upon prior information and thereafter intercepted the respondent with the charas in question. In such circumstances, the learned Special Judge had no option and had correctly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent. 20. We have throughout been maintaining that invariably and in more than 99.9% cases, the prosecution story is stereo typed as has been set out in the preceding paragraphs but such story is completely demolished by the first defence witness examined by the respondent. This witness is Bal Mukand examined as DW-1, who at the relevant time was Vice President of Gram Panchayat, Raila. He stated that he had crossed the spot in the early hours on 12.05.2013 at about 4.00-4.30 a.m. and did not notice the police party on the spot as this witness was going to attend some function in the village. Even though, this witness had been cross-examined at length, but his credibility had not been shattered. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that DW-1 had deposed falsely only to give undue advantage to the respondent. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly taken this circumstance to be sufficient enough to entitle the respondent to the benefit of doubt. 21. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, given the fact that the State is not in a position to show any evidence worth the name to take contrary view in the matter than the one taken by the learned trial Court. 22. The State has miserably failed to establish that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest or illegal error and the decision of the learned trial Court is against the material and evidence available on record. 23. In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent and in our considered opinion, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court. 24. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 25. Record be sent down.