JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 10.03.2015, whereby the present respondents have been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2009, under Section 20 read with Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’) in FIR No. 199 of 2008 dated 18th December, 2008 registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2008, SI/SHO Vijay Sain was on patrol duty in a Government vehicle bearing No.HP33-8179 alongwith the Driver Jitender Kumar, HC Puran Chand, HC Tek Chand, Constable Mahender Singh and Constable Netar Singh in order to detect the crime on account of illegal activities. In the meantime, from Bhadala side, at about 4:50 P.M. in the evening two persons were seen while carrying plastic bag in their right hand. They tried to flee on seeing the police officials and thereafter the police officials on the basis of suspicion that they must be indulging in some illegal activity overpowered them. On asking both the persons disclosed their names as Kanshi Ram, S/O Atma Ram, Resident of Village Kot, P.O. Churag, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi and Hari Om, S/O Kesari Ram, R/O Village Churag, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. The aforesaid accused persons were given an option whether they wanted to be searched by some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and before the Police Officials, but they consented to be searched by the police party at the spot. The police officials gave their search to the accused persons and in the meantime the independent witnesses were also tried to be found on the spot. However, being a forest area no independent witness was found on the spot. On search, Kanshi Ram was found carrying a polythene bag in his right hand and on the said bag “ACQUAFINA” was written in which some substance was found and on the basis of experience, it was found to be charas. On weighing on the spot, it was found to be 1 kg 50 gms charas. 25-25 gram each of the substance was separated for the purpose of sample and was kept in two different foursquare cigarette packets and was packed in a white cloth with six seal impression “T”. On weighing on the spot, it was found to be 1 kg 50 gms charas. 25-25 gram each of the substance was separated for the purpose of sample and was kept in two different foursquare cigarette packets and was packed in a white cloth with six seal impression “T”. Similarly, from Hari Om the narcotic substance weighing 1 kg 50 grams was found in a polythene packet and same was also separated comprising of 25-25 grams each for the purpose of sample and both the substances were kept in two different foursquare cigarette packets and thereafter they were wrapped in a white cloth. The NCB form in triplicate was prepared and case under Section 20 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act was found to have been committed by the present respondents. 3. On completion of investigation, the police presented the challan against the accused persons in the Court for the offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of ND& PS Act. 4. During the trial before the learned court below, accused persons (respondents herein) were charged for offences punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of ND& PS Act., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all. Thereafter, respondents/ accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating material and took the defence that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. However, the accused persons examined four witnesses in order to prove their defence plea. 6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the respondents, as aforesaid, constraining the appellant-State to file the instant appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. J.S.Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellant-State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have also gone through the records of the case in detail. 8. At the outset, it would be necessary to reproduce the evidence led by the prosecution. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer of the case, Inspector Vijay Sain, as PW-9, who deposed that he remained posted as I.O. in P.S. Karsog from 2008 to 2010. 8. At the outset, it would be necessary to reproduce the evidence led by the prosecution. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer of the case, Inspector Vijay Sain, as PW-9, who deposed that he remained posted as I.O. in P.S. Karsog from 2008 to 2010. On 18.12.2008, he alongwith HC Puran Chand, HC Tek Chand, Constable Jitender Kumar, Constable Netar Singh and Constable Mohinder Kumar was on patrol duty at Bhanoi Kufri and at about 2:35 p.m. when they were going on foot, then both accused persons were coming from opposite side. The accused on seeing them tried to run away, but on suspicion, both of them were apprehended. Their names were enquired from them and they disclosed their names as Kanshi Ram and Hari Om. The accused persons were apprised about their legal right whether they wanted  to  be  searched  by  some  Gazetted  Officer  or Magistrate or before the Police Officials and both of them consented to be searched by the police party present on the spot regarding which he prepared memos Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B. He stated that he tried to associate some local witnesses but no one was available at the relevant time. Thereafter, they gave their search to the accused vide memo Ext. PW-2/C. PW-9 stated that he conducted personal search of the accused persons and Kanshi Ram was possessing a polythene packet in his right hand, and on opening, it was found containing black substance which was found to be charas on smelling and on his experience. The charas was weighed and found to be 1 kg 50 grams. Two samples of 25-25 grams each were separated from the contraband which were put in separate match boxes and each of the sample was thereafter put in a separate parcels and each of the parcels were sealed with 6 seals of impression “T”. The residue contraband was put in separate parcel alongwith the polythene which parcel was sealed with 12 seals of impression “T”. Sample seal Ext. PW-2/Q was taken separately and seal impression was also affixed over the NCB form Mark ‘A’ now Ext. PW-9/A which was filled in triplicate. The residue contraband was put in separate parcel alongwith the polythene which parcel was sealed with 12 seals of impression “T”. Sample seal Ext. PW-2/Q was taken separately and seal impression was also affixed over the NCB form Mark ‘A’ now Ext. PW-9/A which was filled in triplicate. On search of accused Hari Om, he was found to be possessing a polythene packet in his right hand and on opening, a black substance in the shape of sticks was recovered which was found to be charas on smelling and experience. The said charas was weighed and found to be 1 kg 50 grams. Two samples each weighing 25-25 grams were separated from the said charas and put into two separate match boxes which were packed in two separate parcels and each of the parcel was sealed with 6 seals of impression “T”. He stated that Rukka Mark ‘C’, now Ext. PW-9/B was prepared and forwarded to Police Station through C. Jitender Kumar. FIR Ext. PW-9/D bears the signatures of HC Sarvan Kumar and he is conversant with his writing and signatures as he has worked with him. He stated that he had handed over the case property alongwith NCB form, seizure memo and sample seals etc. to MHC Police Station Karsog. 9. On cross-examination, PW-9 Inspector Vijay Sain stated that they proceeded from the Police Station at about 2:30 P.M. He admitted that on the said day FIR No. 198 was registered against Basant Lal, who had absconded from the spot and charas was recovered from his possession which was seized by the police. He stated that he had deputed Constable Netar Singh to search independent witness in the locality. He admitted that there was a link road from the main road at some distance from the spot. He stated that they had searched for independent witnesses for about 10 or 15 minutes. The accused were apprehended at a distance of 25 steps. He stated that the samples were drawn by him after mixing the charas. He denied that SDPO was with them at the spot who had come there in a white car. He denied that Basant Lal from whom charas was recovered on the said day in another case had absconded due to his negligence and therefore, in order to save his skin, he implicated both the accused persons in the case falsely. 10. He denied that SDPO was with them at the spot who had come there in a white car. He denied that Basant Lal from whom charas was recovered on the said day in another case had absconded due to his negligence and therefore, in order to save his skin, he implicated both the accused persons in the case falsely. 10. HC Gethal Ram (retired), was examined as PW-1. He stated that in the month of December 2008, he remained posted as HHC in Police Station Karsog. On 19.12.2008, MHC P.S Karsog handed over two samples parcels to him which were sealed with 6-6 seals of seal impression “T”, alongwith specimen seal impression of seal “T”, NCB form in triplicate and copy of FIR with a direction to take the same to FSL Junga. PW-1 stated that on the same day he deposited the case property with FSL Junga. In his cross- examination, PW-1 stated that he was not member of raiding party and did not know about the fact whether any case under ND& PS Act was registered against one Sh. Basant Lal or not. He stated that he started for FSL Junga on 19.12.2008 at about 5:00 am and then he reached at FSL Junga at 1:00 pm in the noon. He deposited the case property after lunch. He denied the suggestion that no case property was given to him nor he took the same to FSL Junga. 11. HC Puran Chand was examined as PW-2. He stated that on 18.12.2008, at about 4:50 P.M., he alongwith SI/SHO Vijay Sain, HC Tek Chand, Constable Netar Singh and Constable Mahinder Singh CID unit Karsog was present at Bhanoul Kufari in a Government vehicle bearing No. HP33-8179, in connection with detection of Forest smuggling and detection of Narcotic Substance. The vehicle was being driven by Constable Jitender Kumar. He stated that while on patrolling duty two persons were apprehended upon suspicion by SI/ SHO Vijay Sain. The police officials suspected that the accused persons might be possessing some narcotic substances. He stated that I.O. issued consent memo Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B to the accused persons and both of them consented to be searched by the police party present at the spot. Accused Kanshi Ram was holding a polythene packet in his hand. Accused Hari Om was also holding a polythene packet in his hand. He stated that I.O. issued consent memo Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B to the accused persons and both of them consented to be searched by the police party present at the spot. Accused Kanshi Ram was holding a polythene packet in his hand. Accused Hari Om was also holding a polythene packet in his hand. From the bag of accused Kanshi Ram a black substance in the shape of sticks was found in the polythene packet, which was found to be charas on smelling and on the basis of experience of the I.O. The polythene packet of accused Kanshi Ram was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW- 2/D. The charas was weighed and found to be 1 kg 50 grams. Out of the recovered charas two samples of 25-25 grams were separately drawn and packed in empty cigarette boxes. Both the samples were sealed with seal impression “T” at 6 places each after putting in a separate parcels and the parcels were marked as A1 and A2 and remaining residue charas was packed in a cloth parcel alongwith  polythene  packet  and  sealed  with  seal impressions “T” at 12 places. Similarly, on the search of the polythene packet held by the accused Hari Om in his right hand black substance in the shape of sticks was also recovered. It was found to be charas on smelling and experience of the I.O. and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-2/F. The charas recovered from the polythene packet of accused Hari Om was weighed and found to be 1 kg 50 grams. Out of the recovered charas, two samples of 25-25 grams were separated in two empty cigarette packets and packed in separate parcels sealed with seal impression “T” at 6 places. The remaining residue charas was packed in a polythene packet in the same sequence and sealed with a seal impression “T” at 12 places and the parcel was marked as B. The personal search memos of accused Kanshi Ram and accused Hari Om Exts. PW-9/N and PW-2/P were also prepared at the spot. 12. In his cross-examination, PW-2 HC Puran Chand stated that they proceeded from the police station at 3:30 p.m. and went to Tatapani and they reached at the spot at about 4:30 p.m. and they were on patrolling duty and the vehicle was parked near Bhanot Kufari. PW-9/N and PW-2/P were also prepared at the spot. 12. In his cross-examination, PW-2 HC Puran Chand stated that they proceeded from the police station at 3:30 p.m. and went to Tatapani and they reached at the spot at about 4:30 p.m. and they were on patrolling duty and the vehicle was parked near Bhanot Kufari. He stated that on the parcel Mark-B the I.O. took his signatures alongwith the signature of HC Tek Chand and accused Hari Om. He also admitted that parcel Mark ‘B’ shown to him in the Court bears the signatures of accused Kanshi Ram. He has admitted that there is Tehsildar at Karsog and Judicial Magistrate is also there. Dy. SP Raj Kumar had also reached at the spot but he did not remember the time of his arrival. He denied that on the previous date they recovered 1 kg 50 grams of charas from a person named Basant Lal, who absconded from the spot. He denied that there were quarters of Forest Guard and house of a Nepali near the spot. He stated that no efforts were made by the I.O. to call any independent witness as no one was present at the spot when the accused were apprehended. 13. HC Tek Chand No 902, was examined as PW-3. He stated that at about 4:50 p.m., he alongwith Sub Inspector Vijay Singh, HC Puran Chand, Constable Netar Singh and Constable Jitender Singh was present at place Bhanoul Kufari on patrolling duty in a vehicle. During patrolling duty, both the accused persons were seen by them, who were coming from Bathala side. On seeing the police party, both the accused person tried to run away and both the accused persons were carrying polythene bags parcel in their hands. On suspicion, both the accused were apprehended. Thereafter, options were given to the accused vide memo Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B and both the accused gave their consent to be searched by the police. The, police party also gave their search, but nothing incriminating was found in their possession. Thereafter, the polythene parcel in possession of accused Kanshi Ram was checked and it was found containing charas in the shape of sticks qua which identification memo Ext. PW-2/G was prepared. The charas so recovered was weighed and it was found to be 1 kg 50 grams. Thereafter, the polythene parcel in possession of accused Kanshi Ram was checked and it was found containing charas in the shape of sticks qua which identification memo Ext. PW-2/G was prepared. The charas so recovered was weighed and it was found to be 1 kg 50 grams. Two samples each weighing 25-25 grams were separated in two empty cigarette packets and packed in separate parcel and each of parcel was sealed with seal impression “T” at 6 places, whereas the residue charas was packed in a separate parcel which was sealed with seal impression “T” at 12 places. Rukka Mark ‘C’ was prepared and was forwarded to the Police Station through Constable Jitender Kumar. 14. In his cross-examination, PW-3, stated that they were having no prior information regarding the contraband. Constable Jitender Kumar who was deputed with the rukka met them on the way, when they were returning to Police Station. Constable Jitender Kumar had left the spot on foot with the rukka. He stated that empty packets of cigarettes in which the samples were put were of the brand “FOURSQUARE”. He stated that he did not remember whether Dy. SP Raj Kumar met them on that day or not. He denied that both the accused were taken to the Police Station on the understanding that they would be let off. 15. Constable Ram Lal No. 52, was examined as PW-4, who stated that he remained posted as Reader to Dy. SP Sundernagar, District Mandi H.P. since May, 2008. On 20.12.2008, special report of the present case under Sections 57 of ND& PS Act was given to him by Sh. Raj Kumar Chandel. 16. In the cross-examination, he denied that no special report was given to him by Dy. S.P. Sundernagar on 20.12.2008. 17. HHC Jiwan Lal No. 416, appeared in the witness box as PW-5. He stated that he remained posted as HHC in P.S. Karsog from 2006 to 2010. On 19.12.2008, SI/SHO Vijay Sain handed over to him one close envelope containing special report of this case for taking the same to Dy. S.P. Sundernagar. 18. In his cross-examination, PW-5 denied the suggestion that neither special report was handed over to him, nor he delivered the same to Dy. S.P. Sundernagar. 19. Constable Jai Singh No. 204 was examined, as PW-6. He stated that he was working as M.C. P.S. Karsog since August, 2006. S.P. Sundernagar. 18. In his cross-examination, PW-5 denied the suggestion that neither special report was handed over to him, nor he delivered the same to Dy. S.P. Sundernagar. 19. Constable Jai Singh No. 204 was examined, as PW-6. He stated that he was working as M.C. P.S. Karsog since August, 2006. On 18.12.2008, he had recorded daily diary No. 26(A), at the instance of SI Vijay Sain, and the copy of the rapat is Ext. PW-6/A, which is true and correct. He further stated that he also recorded Daily Diary No. 45 at the instance of SI Vijay Sain, the copy of same is Ext. PW-6/C, which is true and correct. 20. ASI Bhup Singh, was examined, as PW-7. He stated that he remained posted as HC/IO in P.S. Karsog during 2008 to 2009. He stated that case file was given to him for investigation by SI/SHO Vijay Sain. He stated that he had recorded the statements of HC Ram Lal and HHC Jiwan Lal, as per their versions. 21. HC Sarwan Kumar No. 917, P.S. Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. was examined, as PW-8, who testified that he remained posted as MHC in P.S. Karsog during 2006 to 2009 and in this case, the case property i.e. two parcels sealed with seal impression “T” at 12 places each and 4 small sample parcels sealed with seal impression “T” at 6 places each alongwith NCB form in triplicate, sample seals and other relevant documents were deposited with him on 18.12.2008 by SI Vijay Sain and after receiving the case property, he entered the same at Sr. No. 253 of Malkhana Register, the abstract of which is Ext. PW-8/A. On 19.12.2008, he sent two samples marked as Mark A-1 and Mark B1 alongwith documents to FSL Junga through HHC Gethal Ram vide RC No. 124/2010. The copy of RC is Ext. PW-8/B. HHC Gethal Ram handed over the receipt of deposit of case property to him on his returning in the Police Station. 22. In his cross-examination, PW-8 admitted that in Ext. PW-8/A, he had not mentioned about the seal and number of impressions on bulk parcel containing 1 Kg charas. He stated that he had sent two samples marked as A1 and B1 and the details of the same are mentioned in Ext. PW-8/C which is on the back side of the RC Ext. PW-8/A, he had not mentioned about the seal and number of impressions on bulk parcel containing 1 Kg charas. He stated that he had sent two samples marked as A1 and B1 and the details of the same are mentioned in Ext. PW-8/C which is on the back side of the RC Ext. PW-8/B. He admitted that in the Malkhana register there was no mention of deposit of Mark A1 and B1, however, 4 small samples had been received in Malkhana. He stated that he did not remember in whose presence the case property was handed over to him by I.O. He denied the suggestion that no case property was deposited with him. 23. The prosecution placed on record, the Daily Diary report, Ext. DW1/A abstract of monthly progress report of the then SDPO and the copy of FSL reports Ext. PW-9/E and Ext. PW-9/F. 24. Accused/respondents examined four witnesses in their defence. DW-1 is HC Ram Lal No. 52, Reader to SDPO, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., who had brought the requisitioned record in the Court and abstract of monthly progress report is Ext. DW-1/A which is true and correct as per original record. He stated that he remained posted as Reader of the Dy. S.P. since June 2008. 25. Dharam Singh @ Dhanu was examined as DW-2. He stated that he alongwith accused Hari Om was present at place Chitaghatu. At about 4:00 P.M., a vehicle came there and 6-7 police officials came out and they all were in civil dress. They enquired about some bags which they had found in the forest and they disclosed that they were the police official and Dy. SP was also accompanying them. He further stated that they both were taken to Chindi Rest House and they were taken into a room and police officials forced accused Hari Om to make a call to accused Kanshi Ram. Thereafter, he (DW-2) and two police officials remained in the rest house and remaining police officials alongwith accused Hari Om went away in a vehicle. After about 1 ½ or 2 hours, the police officials came back alongwith accused Hari Om and accused Kanshi Ram and thereafter, they all were taken to Police Station Karsog. Thereafter, he (DW-2) and two police officials remained in the rest house and remaining police officials alongwith accused Hari Om went away in a vehicle. After about 1 ½ or 2 hours, the police officials came back alongwith accused Hari Om and accused Kanshi Ram and thereafter, they all were taken to Police Station Karsog. Accused Kanshi Ram and Hari Om were kept in lockup whereas, DW-2 Dharam Singh was detained in the room of the police officials and on the next day at about 12:00 P.M. he was let off free. 26. In the cross-examination, DW-2 denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to favour the accused persons. 27. Atma Ram was examined, as DW-3. He has stated that he was working as Safai Karamchari in PWD, Rest House Chindi. He has stated that in the month of December, 2008 at about 5:00 P.M., 6-7 persons came in the rest house in a vehicle and told that they were the police officials in the civil dress and Dy.SP was also accompanying them. After taking tea, 2-3 police officials remained in the rest house and remaining police officials, Dy. SP and accused Hari Om went away in their vehicle. Thereafter, at about 10:00 PM they returned back to the rest house and after taking water, they all left the rest house. 28. In the cross-examination, he denied that he was deposing falsely to save the accused persons. 29. Mohan Lal was examined as DW-4, who has stated that he and accused Kanshi Ram were present at place Badada near transformer and at about 6:30-6:45 PM, a vehicle came there and 4-5 persons came out and disclosed that they were the police officials. They slapped accused Kanshi Ram and also slapped him and started abusing him. Thereafter he succeeded in running away from the spot. He stated that neither any search was conducted in his presence, nor anything was recovered in his presence. 30. We have heard Sh. Jagdeep Singh Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for appellant/State and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. 31. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to set out the legal proposition on the issue of scope of interference in the appeal of acquittal as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in following decisions. 32. Jagdeep Singh Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for appellant/State and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. 31. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to set out the legal proposition on the issue of scope of interference in the appeal of acquittal as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in following decisions. 32. In case Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 433 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: (SCC pp.163-64, para 38-41) “38. 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 acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC(Cri)31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) “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 case7, SCC p.432,para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following  general principles regarding 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 on condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds” “very strong circumstances ”,“distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 puts no limitation restriction on condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of 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 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 proved 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.’ ” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 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. 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. 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.” 41. 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: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to  consider  material evidence on record; and 41.3. 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.” 24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/ omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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.” 33. In the case of Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 (4) SCALE, 513 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or  impossible, interference with the same would not be warrated Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13.In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same.” 34. From perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that scope of interference in appeal of acquittal is limited and only in those cases where the judgment is perverse and the evidence has not been appreciated in the proper perspective, the Appellate Court can interfere in the case of acquittal. 35. Now adverting to the facts and the merits of the case. The prosecution has failed to establish its case on various grounds. First of all, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness in order to link the respondents to the alleged offence. 35. Now adverting to the facts and the merits of the case. The prosecution has failed to establish its case on various grounds. First of all, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness in order to link the respondents to the alleged offence. PW-9 Inspector Vijay Sain has stated that the police official searched for independent witnesses for about 10 to 15 minutes and the accused were apprehended at the distance of about 25 steps. This statement is contrary to the statement as made by PW-2 HC Puran Chand, who has stated that no efforts were made by the I.O. to call any independent witnesses as no one was present at the spot when the accused was apprehended. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to associate any independent witness in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons qua the alleged offence. The prosecution has to prove not only the exclusive possession of the contraband but also has to prove that the said contraband was in the conscious possession of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were found in exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband. 36. There are material contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the witnesses as examined by the prosecution. PW-9 (I.O.) in this case stated that the accused persons were nabbed at 2:35 pm when the police officials were going on foot. This statement is contrary to the statements of PW-2 HC Puran Chand and HC Tek Chand (PW-3). PW-2 stated that on 18.12.2008 at about 4:50 pm they were present at Bhanoul Kufari in Government vehicle bearing No. HP33-8179. Similarly, PW-3 stated that he alongwith other police officials at 4:50 p.m., was present at Bhanoul Kuffari in Government vehicle on patrolling duty. Therefore, there is contradiction about the timing and the presence of the officials on the spot. From the perusal of Ext. PW-6/A, which is a copy of the Daily Station Diary report, it shows that departure of the police party has been shown to be 2:35 p.m. In case, Ext. PW-6/A is believed, meaning thereby, they departed at 2:35 p.m. and at the same time immediately they arrested the accused persons at 2:35 p.m. which is impossible. This is a glaring contradiction and infirmity on the part of prosecution which has not been explained by the learned Deputy Advocate General. 37. PW-6/A is believed, meaning thereby, they departed at 2:35 p.m. and at the same time immediately they arrested the accused persons at 2:35 p.m. which is impossible. This is a glaring contradiction and infirmity on the part of prosecution which has not been explained by the learned Deputy Advocate General. 37. In his statement, PW-9 has stated that contraband weighing 1 kg 50 grams each from both the accused was recovered and out of that two samples of 25 grams each were separated from the contraband which were put in separate match boxes and each of the samples was thereafter put in a separate parcel and each parcel was sealed with seal impression “T”. The Statement of PW-9 is in conflict with the statement of PW-2 HC Puran Chand, who stated that out of the recovered charas two samples of 25- 25 grams were separated in two empty cigarette packets and packed in a separate parcels sealed with seal impression “T” at 6 places each. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-3 HC Tek Chand, who had stated that empty packets of cigarette in which the samples were put, were of the brand “FOURSQUARE”. Therefore, there is material contradictions in the statements of PW-9, PW-2 and PW-3, on this aspect. 38. Perusal of Ext. DW-1/A demonstrates that on 18.12.2008 as per the monthly progress report of the then SDPO, it has been mentioned that he went to Police Station Karsog in a private vehicle and conducted a Nakkabandi at Bhanoul Kufari near Churag with police staff at Karsog and during Nakabandi 3 kg 150 grams of charas was recovered from the persons. However, the statements of the official witnesses in the case are in conflict qua the same. PW-9 stated that the contraband which was found from the accused persons was weighing 1 kg 50 grams each from both of them. To the similar extent is the statement of PW-2 HC Puran Chand, who also stated that the charas was weighed and it was found 1 kg 50 grams each from both the accused. PW-3 has also stated that charas so recovered was weighed and it was found 1 kg 50 grams. These discrepancies have also not been explained by the prosecution as well as learned counsel for the State. 39. PW-3 has also stated that charas so recovered was weighed and it was found 1 kg 50 grams. These discrepancies have also not been explained by the prosecution as well as learned counsel for the State. 39. Apart from that, it has come on record that two samples each weighing 25-25 grams were separated and put into empty cigarette packets. As per the prosecution story the contraband was packed in separate parcels and each of parcel was sealed with seal impression “T” at 6 places. The said fact has been substantiated by PW-2, PW- 3 and PW-9, however, in the FSL report Ext. PW-9/E, the observation given at Sr. No. 10 says that on weighing the exhibit of the samples bearing A-1 and B-1, on electronic balance, the same were found to be 18.15 grams and 17.47 grams respectively. It reflects variation in the weight of the samples which were taken by the prosecution. Therefore, the said variation is very material and in the absence of any explanation by the prosecution, adverse inference is required to be drawn against them. 40. The perusal of statement of PW-1 HC Gethal would show that he started on 19th of December, 2008 at about 5:00 A.M. and thereafter he deposited the case property after lunch. Ext. PW-9/E would show that date of receipt of the sample has been shown to be 20th December, 2008 and the prosecution has failed to connect the safe delivery of the samples at FSL for its examination. However, the prosecution has failed to connect the report Ext. PW-9/A with the said contraband recovered from the present respondent. The statement of PW-1 when read with PW-9/E demolishes the case of the prosecution. 41. One of the glaring aspect in the matter is that as per the case of the prosecution. Rukka Mark ‘C’ was prepared and sent to the police station through Constable Jitender Kumar. PW-3 has stated in his examination-in-chief that rukka was sent through Constable Jitender Kumar, however, surprisingly, Constable Jitender Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution. Even through his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses, however, subsequently he was given up to the reasons best known to the prosecution. 42. PW-3 has stated in his examination-in-chief that rukka was sent through Constable Jitender Kumar, however, surprisingly, Constable Jitender Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution. Even through his name was mentioned in the list of witnesses, however, subsequently he was given up to the reasons best known to the prosecution. 42. One more important aspect which has not been explained by the prosecution is that it has come in the statement of PW-9, whereby he has denied the suggestion that SDPO was with them on the spot, who had come there in the white car. Meaning thereby, PW-9 has denied the presence of SDPO on the spot. This statement is in conflict with the statement of PW-2 HC Puran Chand, who has stated in his cross-examination that DY.SP Raj Kumar had also reached at the spot and he did not remember the time of his arrival. The prosecution has failed to prove the link evidence qua the bulk charas. No evidence has been led by the prosecution that the case property was taken out of the Malkhana and delivered in the FSL. Neither C. Ravinder Kumar who as per FSL report delivered the case property at FSL has been examined nor MHC has been examined to prove link in the story of the prosecution. 43. The missing link has not been explained by the prosecution, as a result of which prosecution has failed to prove its case and has failed to connect the accused persons qua the aforesaid offences. 44. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 45. Perusal of the judgments, as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, demonstrates that the scope of interference in the case of acquittal is very limited. It has been held that the prosecution in order to prove its case must establish the guilt of the accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It has been held that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that the prosecution in order to prove its case must establish the guilt of the accused from the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It has been held that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has been further held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 46. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to point out an error in the judgment passed by the learned court below. The learned court below has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record after thrashing the entire evidence and material for the determination of the case and thus has rightly acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent. The view taken by the learned trial court is plausible as well as possible one. 47. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. 48. The bails bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are discharged. 49. Records be sent down.