JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Session Case No.08-VII-2012 titled ‘State of H.P. vs. Deepak Bhupal alias Nandu,’ in case FIR No.364 of 2010 dated 09.11.2010 (Exhibit PW-8/B) registered at Police Station Una, under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), whereby respondent has been acquitted of charge under Section 15 of NDPS Act. 2. Prosecution’s case is that on 09.11.2010, Investigating Officer-SI Harjeet Singh (PW-10) along with HC Albel Singh (PW-7) and HHC Purshotam Lal (PW-9), at about 08:00 pm, was patrolling in Mehatpur Bazar, District Una. On reaching railway crossing, he noticed, in the headlights of vehicle, a person carrying a big black polythene in his left hand and was coming towards Mehatpur. On suspicion, SI Harjeet Singh (PW-10) stopped the vehicle and police personnel came out of the vehicle. The said person was then stopped by the Investigating Officer along with the accompanying police officials. 3. In the meanwhile, PW-1 Amrik Singh reached on the spot in his personal vehicle. In his presence, on inquiry, apprehended person disclosed his name as Deepak Bhupal alias Nandu son of Ram Nath, Caste Gujjar, resident of Village Jakhewal (Beetan), P.S Haroli, District Una. 4. On checking the polythene bag being carried by Deepak Bhupal-respondent, five polythene packets were found and each packet was found containing poppy husk. In presence of witnesses, Police Officials and respondent-Deepak Bhupal, contraband was identified as poppy husk and identification memo (Exhibit PW7/A) was prepared, which was signed by witnesses as well as respondent- Deepak Bupal. On weighing, in each polythene packet 900 gms each poppy husk was found and in total 4 kg 500 gms poppy husk was recovered. The polythene packets were marked as Serial Nos.A1 to A5 and were put in big polythene bag and sealed in parcel of cloth with seven seals of impression ‘K’. 5. NCB Form in triplicate (Exhibit PW-2/B) was also filled up and poppy husk was taken in possession vide Seizure Memo (Exhibit PW-7/C). A copy of memo was supplied to Deepak free of cost. 6. After sealing the cloth parcel with seven seals of impression ‘K’ and taking 3 samples of seal (Exhibit PW-7/B), the seal through memo was handed over to independent witness-Amrik Singh (PW-1). A copy of memo was supplied to Deepak free of cost. 6. After sealing the cloth parcel with seven seals of impression ‘K’ and taking 3 samples of seal (Exhibit PW-7/B), the seal through memo was handed over to independent witness-Amrik Singh (PW-1). Spot map (Exhibit PW-10/A) was prepared, which was signed by witnesses and Deepak. 7. On finding commission of offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act, a Ruqua (Exhibit PW-8/A) was prepared by SI Harjeet Singh (PW-10) and was sent to Police Station through HHC Purshotam Lal (PW-9), whereupon FIR No.364 of 2010 dated 09.11.2010 (Exhibit PW- 8/B) was registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, HHC Purshotam Lal (PW-9) came back to the spot along with case file. At 11:55 pm respondent was arrested, in respect of which arrest memo (Exhibit PW-7/D) was prepared. 8. On reaching the Police Station, SI Harjeet Singh (PW-10) handed over the sealed parcel to SHO R.R. Thakur-PW8, who, in turn, resealed the parcel with five seals of impression ‘A’ and seal impression (Exhibit PW-8/D) was taken on piece of cloth. SHO R.R. Thakur-PW8 filled column Nos.9 to 11 of NCB forms, and case property along with NCB forms was handed over to PW-2 MHC Ajaib Singh. 9. SHO R.R. Thakur (PW-8) prepared certificate (Exhibit PW- 8/E) under Section 55 of NDPS Act and regarding resealing, a rapat (Exhibit PW-5/B) was recorded. 10. Investigating Officer prepared special report (PW-4/A) under Section 57 of NDPS Act, which was submitted to Superintendent of Police, Una, on 10.11.2010. 11. The recovered contraband was sent for chemical examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) through PW- 3 Constable Shamsher Singh and chemical examination report was brought by PW-6 Constable Satinder Pal on 22.11.2010, which was handed over to MHC. 12. After completion of investigation, on receipt of chemical examination report (Exhibit PW-2/D), Challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 13. The Trial Court, on finding sufficient material for making out a prima facie case, framed charge against respondent under Section 15 of NDPS Act. 14. Respondent was subjected to trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses, whereas respondent also examined two witnesses in defence. 15. PW-1 Amrik Singh, is an independent witness, who in the Court completely denied the prosecution case regarding his presence on the spot and recovery of contraband from the respondent. 14. Respondent was subjected to trial. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses, whereas respondent also examined two witnesses in defence. 15. PW-1 Amrik Singh, is an independent witness, who in the Court completely denied the prosecution case regarding his presence on the spot and recovery of contraband from the respondent. Despite being subjected to cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, after declaring him hostile, nothing positive could be elicited in favour of the prosecution case. Rather, he propounded another story that he had gone to the Police Station, Una, on account of some work, where his signatures were taken by the police on seal Supurdari memo (Exhibit PW-1/A), seizure memo (Exhibit PW-7/C) and sample seals on cloth (Exhibit PW-8/D). He further stated that he was in hurry and he put his signature on the documents on asking of the police. 16. It is apt to record that during examination of PW-1, on prayer of Public Prosecutor, the cloth parcel having 6 seals of FSL, was produced and opened, and on opening, another parcel bearing 4 seals of impression ‘K’ and 2 seals of ‘A’ was found. Whereas, according to prosecution story, parcel was sealed with 7 seals of ‘K’ and re-sealed with 5 seals of ‘A’. 17. It is noticeable that in prosecution story as well as in NCB form, Ruqua and seizure memo, it has been stated that 7 seals of impression ‘K’ embossed on the cloth parcel, which was resealed by SHO by putting 5 seals impressions ‘A’. However, when contraband was produced in the Court, it was having 4 seals of impression ‘K’ and 2 seals of impression ‘A’ and 6 seals of FSL. 18. As per FSL report, Exhibit PW-2/D, parcel was returned with seal FSL-II, whereas according to PW-6 Constable Satinder Pal, parcel recovered by him from State Forensic Lab was sealed with 7 seals of SFSL. 19. According to PW-6 Constable Satinder Pal, he had received case property from the FSL with seven seals of FSL. At the time of examining PW-7 HC Albel Singh, 12 seals of impression ‘K’ were found on the seal parcel and 4 seals of FSL were found thereon, whereas there were marks of 2 additional seals on parcel, but the seal had been uprooted from their place. 20. According to the prosecution’s case, PW-7 HC Albel Singh was also on the spot. 20. According to the prosecution’s case, PW-7 HC Albel Singh was also on the spot. During his examination-in-chief, case property was produced in the Court and recorded by the Trial Court that sealed parcel was found bearing 12 seals of impression ‘K’, ‘A’ and 4 seals of FSL. It was further noticed that there were two more marks of seals on the parcel, but the seals had been uprooted from their place. 21. There is material contradiction and discrepancy with regard to not only number of seals, but also regarding description of seal, such as FSL II, SFSL and FSL. 22. The aforesaid discrepancy in the seals put on the parcel by the Investigating Officer, seals by the SHO at the time of resealing and seals of State FSL on the parcel containing contraband submitted to it for chemical examination, creates doubt about the case property being produced by the prosecution before the Court. There is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to connect the cloth parcel containing contraband produced in the Court with the prosecution case. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove, in accordance with law, that the case property containing the contraband is connected with the present case or respondent. 23. PW-9 HHC Purshotam Lal had stated he had left the spot along with Ruqua at around 01:15 pm by taking lift from private vehicle. It is apt to record that, according to prosecution case, respondent was apprehended at about 08:00 pm, the FIR was registered at 11:25 pm and respondent was arrested at 11:55 pm. Therefore, it is not possible for PW-9 HHC Purshotam Lal to take Ruqua at 01:15 pm, either on 9th or 10th of November, 2010. Even if it is considered that ‘01:15 pm’ has been written wrongly and it was 01:15 am, as sequence of event stated in the prosecution story suggests that search and seizure process was started after 08:00 pm and during midnight it was completed, then also it is irreconcilable that FIR was registered at 11:25 am before arrival of Ruqua in the Police Station and respondent was also arrested prior to sending Ruqua from the spot. 24. 24. Deposition of HHC Purshotam Lal (PW-9) that he had left the spot at 01:15 pm (sic) ‘am’ also creates doubt about the prosecution claim with regard to the recovery as alleged in the prosecution case, because according to the prosecution story, Ruqua was received in the Police Station at 11:20 pm and FIR was registered at 11:25 pm and resealing was done by SHO R.R. Thakur-PW8 at about 02:25 am. According to this witness, SI Harjeet Singh (PW-10) had produced the case property at 01:30 am in the Police Station, whereas the Ruqua was taken at the spot at 01:15 pm (sic) am. This discrepancy goes to the root of the case, as it creates doubt about entire story of the prosecution. 25. Though respondent has examined DW-1, a Nodal Officer, to repel the claim of the Investigating Officer that telephonic call was made from mobile phone No.98163-98222 for giving information of arrest of respondent to his wife, as in the call details placed on record as Exhibit DW-2/A, there was no call made from this number after 05:07 pm on 09.11.2010. Whereas claim of the Investigating Officer is that the arrest was made 11:55 pm and thereafter, wife was informed by contacting her through mobile phone. However, respondent or his witnesses produced by him, have not placed on record necessary certificate, required to be produced and proved under Section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act, therefore, this evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the discrepancies on record, referred supra are sufficient to create doubt about the prosecution story. 26. Respondent has been acquitted by the Trial Court, which fortifies his presumption of innocence and prosecution has failed to rebut the same for shaky character of evidence, especially with respect to identification of contraband proved in the Trial Court. It is well settled in law that in case of doubt, the benefit has to be extended to the accused. 27. The evidence linking the contraband with respondent is doubtful and we are of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to discuss other evidence on record, including discrepancies and contradictions. 28. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.