JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Special Judge (III), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 27.04.2015 whereby the present respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 20 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2010 Inspector Hemant Kumar along with SI Kamla Ghai, SI Rishi Raj, HC Yog Raj, Constable Rajesh Kumar, Constable Pramod Kumar and HHG Mehar Singh, was on patrolling duty and detection of crime in Govt. vehicles bearing registration No. HP-33A-8793 and HP-03-2072 which were being driven by drivers Constable Hira Lal and HHG Vikku Ram, respectively. When the police party was present at place Kao Road, which was one kilometer ahead of Thalaut Bridge and had laid a ‘naka’ there, then, at about 4.30 a.m., one person came from the side of village Basan and the said person was stopped by the police party. One seeing the police party, he got scared and at once tried to run away. On the basis of suspicion, the said person was apprehended by the police party. On inquiry, he disclosed his name Karam Singh, son of Shri Mansa Ram, resident of Village Basan, Post Office Thalaut, Tehsil and District Aut, District Mandi, H.P. The aforesaid place was secluded one and no independent witnesses could be associated. Therefore, Inspector Hemant Kumar associated SI Rishi Raj and HC Yog Raj as witnesses and the said person was apprised that he is having legal right to give his search either to a Gazetted Officer or to the Magistrate and he gave his consent vide memo Ext. PW5/A to be searched by the police officer. Before conducting the search of the aforesaid person, the police officials also gave their search to the accused vide Fard Ext. PW1/A. During search of the said person, he was having one black coloured bag on his left shoulder on which word “D DIESEL” was written. PW5/A to be searched by the police officer. Before conducting the search of the aforesaid person, the police officials also gave their search to the accused vide Fard Ext. PW1/A. During search of the said person, he was having one black coloured bag on his left shoulder on which word “D DIESEL” was written. On opening the aforesaid bag, two ‘khakhi’ envelopes in plastic tape packing were recovered, out of which in one envelope which was in ‘khakhi’ tape, a black substance in round shape was found in a white plastic envelope which on smelling and on the basis of experience was found to be ‘charas’/cannabis and, on weighing, it was found to be 400 grams. On opening another envelope, a green plastic envelope was found in which a black and brown coloured soft substance was found. On smelling and testing, the same was found to be opium which on weighing was found to be 500 grams. 3. The recovered charas and opium were packed in two different ‘pullindas’ and were sealed with seal impression ‘C’ at six places each. The recovered bag was also put in a ‘pullinda’ which was also sealed with six seal impression of ‘C’. NCB-1 forms in triplicate were filled. The specimen of seal impression Ext. PW5/B was separately taken on a piece of cloth in the presence of aforesaid witnesses and the recovered substance along with NCB-1 form was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW5/C. Rukka Ext. PW1/B was sent through Constable Pramod Kumar to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW8/A was registered and an endorsement Ext.PW8/B was made on rukka. Thereafter, the accused person was arrested vide memo Ext.PW6/D. As per his disclosure, his arrest information was given to his wife Leela Devi. Inspector Hemant Kumar filled columns No.1 to 8 of NCB-1 form in triplicate and produced the case property along with recovery memo, specimen of seal impression, NCB-1 form in triplicate before Inspector Mohinder Singh for the purpose of re-sealing. Inspector Mohinder Singh filled columns No.9 to 11 of NCB-1 form and re-sealed the same and specimen of seal impression Ext.PW8/C was separately taken on a piece of cloth. 4. The case property sealed with seal impression ‘C’ and re-sealed with seal impression ‘G’ along with NCB-1 form was deposited with HHC Vinod Kumar, Malkhana Incharge. Inspector Mohinder Singh filled columns No.9 to 11 of NCB-1 form and re-sealed the same and specimen of seal impression Ext.PW8/C was separately taken on a piece of cloth. 4. The case property sealed with seal impression ‘C’ and re-sealed with seal impression ‘G’ along with NCB-1 form was deposited with HHC Vinod Kumar, Malkhana Incharge. He made an entry to this effect in his ‘Malkhana’ register Ext.PW2/A and rapat to this effect was drawn in the police station. HC Vinod Kumar sent the aforesaid two ‘pullindas’ along with case FIR, recovery memo, NCB-1 form in triplicate and specimen seal impressions through constable Rajesh Kumar to FSL, Junga for the purpose of chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner opined that in parcel Mark A-1 ‘charas’ was found and in parcel Mark A-2 opium was found. 5. On completion of investigation and all codal formalities, the challan was presented before the Court for the offence punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the NDPS Act. 6. On finding a prima facie case, the accused/respondent was charge-sheeted under Sections 18 and 20 of the NDPS Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded his innocence and stated that a false case has been made out against him. 8. After evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges framed against him. 9. Feeling dis-satisfied, the State has filed the instant appeal against the respondent herein. 10. First of all, it would be appropriate to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. 11. The Investigating Officer Hemant Kumar was examined as PW7. He deposed that he remained posted in Police Station, State Vigilance Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mandi from July, 2008 to May, 2012. On 10.03.2010, he along with Inspector Kamla Ghai, Sub Inspector Rishi Raj, H.C. Yog Raj, Constable Pankaj Kumar, Constable Rajesh Kumar, Constable Pramod Kumar and HHG Mehar Singh was on patrolling and ‘naka’ duty towards Pandoh in two government vehicles bearing Nos. On 10.03.2010, he along with Inspector Kamla Ghai, Sub Inspector Rishi Raj, H.C. Yog Raj, Constable Pankaj Kumar, Constable Rajesh Kumar, Constable Pramod Kumar and HHG Mehar Singh was on patrolling and ‘naka’ duty towards Pandoh in two government vehicles bearing Nos. HP-03-2072 and HP-33A-8793 which were being driven by Constable Hira Lal and HHG Vikku Ram and was present at Kao Road at a distance about 1 kilometre from Thalaut Bridge. He stated that at about 4.30 a.m., they noticed one person coming from village Basan, who was having a bag on his left shoulder. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and tried to run away. He was nabbed by the police on the basis of suspicion. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Karam Chand. As per the witness, since the place was secluded, no person was available and, therefore, Sub Inspector Rishi Raj and HC Yog Raj were associated as witnesses. Thereafter, an option was taken from the accused whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and vide memo Ext. PW5/A, the accused gave his option to be searched before him. Thereafter, the police party gave their personal search to the accused vide memo Ext. PW1/A. He stated that on personal search of the accused, a black coloured bag was noticed hanging on his left shoulder on which word ‘Diesel’ was written. On opening the bag, two plastic packets were recovered which were wrapped with ‘Khakhi plastic tape. As per this witness, on opening one packet, a black coloured stick shaped substance was recovered which on smelling and on the basis of experience was found to be ‘charas’. The recovered ‘charas’ was weighed in the balance and the weight of the ‘charas’ was found to be 400 grams. 12. As per PW7, thereafter, second packet was opened in which brownish coloured substance was recovered which was wrapped in a white plastic wrapper on which ‘khakhi’ tape was fixed. The recovered substance was found to be opium and, on weighing, it was found to be 500 grams. He stated that both opium and charas were repacked in the same manner and sealed in two separate cloth parcels which were sealed with six seals of ‘C’ each. NCB form in triplicate Ext.PY was filled in by him. The recovered substance was found to be opium and, on weighing, it was found to be 500 grams. He stated that both opium and charas were repacked in the same manner and sealed in two separate cloth parcels which were sealed with six seals of ‘C’ each. NCB form in triplicate Ext.PY was filled in by him. He stated that black coloured bag was separately sealed in a separate cloth parcel which was sealed with six seals of ‘C’ and seal after use was handed over to HC Yog Raj. The bag, charas and opium packed in parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW5/C in the presence of witnesses HC Yog Raj, SI Rishi Raj as well as accused. 13. In his cross-examination, PW7 stated that he does not know who had stitched the parcels on the spot. He stated that today he has seen the green polythene in Ext.P4 but has not seen the white polythene in Ext.P4. As per this witness, the spot was at a distance of 35 kms away from their office and it took one hour to reach there. He stated that they left the office at about 11.30 p.m. and reached at Thalaut area at about 1.30- 2.00 a.m. and in between this period, they had patrolled in the area at different places. He stated that he does not remember at how many places, they had stopped. As per this witness, Pandoh and Thalaut are populated areas having residential and commercial houses on both sides of the road. He stated that he had not seen Kao Village and similarly he did not know the distance of village Basan from the spot. He stated that they had laid a ‘naka’ one kilometer away from Thalaut. They reached on the alleged spot at 3.00 a.m. and he does not know how many vehicles/persons were checked by them upto 4.30 a.m. He stated that they had laid a ‘naka’ for drug detection as he had prior information regarding the same. He stated that he had not pen downed the prior information regarding drug peddling, but he stated that he had mentioned the same in rapat ‘rawangi’. As per this witness, he does not remember who had scribed the memo u/s 50 NDPS Act Ext. PW5/A. He stated that he had directly asked the accused through this memo that he was possessing contraband. As per this witness, he does not remember who had scribed the memo u/s 50 NDPS Act Ext. PW5/A. He stated that he had directly asked the accused through this memo that he was possessing contraband. As per this witness, he does not know who had written memo Ext.PW1/A. After preparing Ext.PW5/A, personal search of the accused was taken but nothing incriminating was found on his personal search and in continuation of personal search of the accused, bag Ext.P9 was checked and he had interrogated the accused regarding the contents of Ext.P9. 14. In cross-examination, he further stated that he had not taken any serious efforts to take the accused before nearest Gazetted Officer/Magistrate before his personal search. He also stated that he does not know who scribed recovery memo Ext.PW5/C, arrest memo Ext.PW6/D and rukka Ext. PW1/B. He stated that he does not remember how Pramod took rukka. As per this witness, he does not remember in which official vehicle, he had gone to the spot and who was driving the vehicle and he also does not remember the other members, who were with him in that particular vehicle. He stated that he had not seen today common three NCB forms for both charas and opium. As per this witness, he does not remember on which official vehicle he came back to the police station. He denied that neither he nor other police officials were present on the spot. He denied that the accused was not apprehended by them nor opium and charas were recovered from the accused. Lastly, he denied that all the memos and statements of witnesses were prepared and written by him of his own at police station. 15. PW8 Inspector Mohinder Kumar stated that he remained posted as I.O. in Police Station SV & ACB, Mandi, H.P. from the year 2009 to 2012. On 11.03.2010, at about 8.30 a.m., Constable Pramod Kumar brought rukka Ext.PW1/B to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered after making endorsement Ext.PW8/B on rukka. He stated that he prepared the case file and handed over to Pramod Kumar for carrying the same to the spot. On 11.03.2010, at about 8.30 a.m., Constable Pramod Kumar brought rukka Ext.PW1/B to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered after making endorsement Ext.PW8/B on rukka. He stated that he prepared the case file and handed over to Pramod Kumar for carrying the same to the spot. On the same day, at about 2.00 p.m., Inspector Hemant Kumar had handed over to him three sealed parcels which were sealed with six seals of ‘C’ each with sample seal, NCB form in triplicate and other relevant documents and he resealed the said parcels with three seals of ‘G’ each and also filled the columns No. 9 to 11 of NCB form in triplicate and had also drawn sample seal on separate piece of cloth. After resealing, the above case property along with NCB form in triplicate, sample seals ‘C’ and ‘G’ and other documents were handed over to MHC at about 2.30 p.m. on the same day. As per this witness, the case property remained intact in his possession. 16. In his cross-examination, he denied that no rukka was received by him and also denied that a false FIR was registered. He denied that no sample parcel was produced before him nor he resealed the same. He stated that he had not mentioned how many seals were affixed by him over NCB form. 17. PW1 Pramod Kumar, who was also the member of the police party, stated on somewhat similar lines in his examination-in-chief. 18. In his cross-examination, he stated that spot is 35 km away from the police station and it took 4 hours to them to reach at the spot. He stated that they had laid a ‘naka’ at Pandoh Dam and they stopped for 10 minutes at Hanogi and Thalaut and thereafter they reached on the spot. He admitted that there are residential areas at Thalaut as well as Pandoh. He stated that Thalaut is on the National Highway and on both sides of the road, there are shops and residential houses. As per this witness, Village Basan might be 2-3 kms away from the spot. He stated that I.O. had not sent any police official to bring independent witnesses either from Thalaut or from village Basan. He stated that Thalaut is on the National Highway and on both sides of the road, there are shops and residential houses. As per this witness, Village Basan might be 2-3 kms away from the spot. He stated that I.O. had not sent any police official to bring independent witnesses either from Thalaut or from village Basan. He stated that he does not remember who had scribed the consent memo and he also does not remember who had written twice over consent memo regarding giving of consent to the police by the accused. He stated that he does not remember when I.O. had obtained the signatures of driver Hira Lal on Ext.PW1/A and he also does not remember how the I.O. filled the NCB form in triplicate. He further stated that he does not remember who had stitched the parcel at the spot. He denied that he was not member of the raiding party. He also denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. 19. PW2 HC Vinod Kumar stated that he is posted as MHC in SV & ACB, Mandi, from October, 2009. On 11.03.2010, Inspector Mohinder had deposited the case property three parcels sealed with seal ‘C’ at six places and resealed with seal ‘G’ at three places along with other documents which he entered in the ‘Malkhana’ register at Sr.No.4/19, copy of which is Ext.PW2/A. On 17.03.2010, two parcels containing ‘charas’ and opium were sent through constable Rajesh Kumar vide RC No. 27/2010 Ext. PW2/B and after depositing the same, he handed over the receipt to him. He stated that on 25.04.2010, Constable Pramod Kumar was deputed to bring the case property and result Ext.PX and on receipt he had entered the same in the ‘Malkhana’ register. 20. In his cross-examination, he denied that no case property was handed over to him by Inspector Mohinder Singh nor he had sent the same to FSL, Junga. 21. HC Rajesh Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW3, who stated that he remained posted as Constable General Duty in the year 2010. He stated that he had taken the case property alongwith documents and sample seals to FSL, Junga vide RC No. 27/2010 dated 17.03.2010, Ext. PW2/B and on arrival he handed over the receipt to MHC. 22. HC Rajesh Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW3, who stated that he remained posted as Constable General Duty in the year 2010. He stated that he had taken the case property alongwith documents and sample seals to FSL, Junga vide RC No. 27/2010 dated 17.03.2010, Ext. PW2/B and on arrival he handed over the receipt to MHC. 22. In his cross-examination, he stated that they started from police station on 10.03.2010 and reached at the spot at 4.00 a.m. Spot is ahead of 200 metres in Kao road. As per this witness, there are residential houses at village Kao. He went to the spot in vehicle No.HP-33A-8793. He specifically stated that nothing was recovered in his presence. As per this witness, the police party reached at Thalaut at 4.30 a.m. and their vehicle reached at police station at 5.30 a.m. He denied that no case property was handed over to him to deposit the same in FSL. 23. Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma was examined as PW4. He stated that in the year 2011, he was posted as Dy. S.P., State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mandi, H.P. As per this witness, Inspector Hemant Kapoor, I.O. produced the file before him after completion of the investigation. Thereafter, he prepared the challan and presented the same before the court. On being cross-examined, he denied that Inspector Hemant Kumar did not produce the file before him for preparation of challan nor did he prepare the challan in this case. 24. PW5 Rishi Raj, who was the member of the police party, in his examination-in-chief, has stated on similar lines as stated by I.O. (PW7). In his cross-examination, he stated that vehicle bearing No. HP-03-2072 was Gypsy and Vehicle No. HP-33A-8793 was Bolero. The alleged spot of occurrence is about 35 kilometres away from Mandi. As per this witness, they reached at the spot at about 2.00 a.m. They stopped at Thalaut for about half an hour. PW5 admitted that Thalaut is located nearby National Highway and is thickly populated. He was in the Gypsy. Pankaj and Mehar Chand were with him and they did not check the vehicle at the spot. As per this witness, they only checked the accused during two and half hours ‘naka’ at the spot. Consent memo was prepared first but he cannot say who had written this memo. He was in the Gypsy. Pankaj and Mehar Chand were with him and they did not check the vehicle at the spot. As per this witness, they only checked the accused during two and half hours ‘naka’ at the spot. Consent memo was prepared first but he cannot say who had written this memo. He stated that he cannot say whether I.O. tried to take accused to Aut. Parcels were stitched at the spot by HHC Pankaj and recovery memo was prepared at 4.30 a.m. He stated that he does not remember by whom it was written. Rukka was sent at about 5.45 a.m. He stated that Pramod Kumar did not go to the police station by official vehicle. They remained at the spot till 10.30 a.m. and they reached at the police station at about 2.00 p.m. Parmod Kumar brought the case file at the spot at about 10.00 a.m. He stated that he does not remember whether NCB forms in triplicate were prepared separately qua charas and opium. As per this witness, weighing scale was traditional and weights were 20 grams, 50 grams, 100 grams, 200 grams and 500 grams. He denied that he was not present at the spot nor any alleged recovery of charas, opium and bag was effected in his presence. 25. Sh. Bhupinder Singh was examined as PW6. He stated that in the year 2009-2010, he remained posted as Dy.S.P., Vigilance, Mandi, H.P. On 12.03.2010, Inspector Hemant Kumar produced before him special report Ext.PW6/A. On reading the said special report, he handed over the same to MHC Vinod Kumar, who entered the same in the record. His endorsement on report Ext. PW6/A is Ext. PW6/B which bears his signatures. 26. In his cross-examination, PW6 denied that no special report was handed over to him by Inspector Hemant Kumar nor did he hand over the same to MHC Vinod Kumar for record. 27. We have heard Shri I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State and Shri H.S.Rangra, Advocate, for the respondent. 28. 26. In his cross-examination, PW6 denied that no special report was handed over to him by Inspector Hemant Kumar nor did he hand over the same to MHC Vinod Kumar for record. 27. We have heard Shri I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State and Shri H.S.Rangra, Advocate, for the respondent. 28. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State has contended that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (III), Mandi, dated 27.04.2015 is bad in the eyes of law and the learned Court below has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and has acquitted the respondent on flimsy grounds. 29. On the other hand, Shri H.S.Rangra, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the judgment as passed by the learned Special Judge (III), Mandi and he has submitted that the impugned judgment as passed by the learned Court below does not call for any interference since the learned Court below has taken into consideration the entire material placed on record and after appreciating the same, judgment of acquittal has been passed in favour of the respondent. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that Appellate Court should be slow while dealing with the judgment of acquittal. The scope of interference, especially, in the cases of acquittal is very limited and the said exposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following judgments. 31. In Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or 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. 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 emphasize 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.” 32. In Dhanapal vs. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras (2009) 10 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “25. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said: (AIR p. 809, para 5) 5….It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal." 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2119/2010, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram, decided on 28.7.2022, has held as under:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 34. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2025) 5 SCC 433 , has held as under:- “23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149 , 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: “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 case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , 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. 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 or 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. … 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. 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.” 35. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decisions has held that the presumption of innocence is always in favour of the person, who has been acquitted by the Court below. The order of acquittal adds upto the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its decisions has held that the presumption of innocence is always in favour of the person, who has been acquitted by the Court below. The order of acquittal adds upto the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. It is duty of the Appellate Court that when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence not to repeat the narration of the evidence or to rely upon the reasons given by the trial Court and expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court, the decision which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as possible one, particularly, when the evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds upto presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. 36. The Appellate Court 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 principles 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. 37. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, learned counsel for the respondent Shri H.S. Rangra has pointed out that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as a result of which, no reliance can be placed upon the same. 38. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon its case mainly on the statements of PW1 Constable Pramod Kumar, PW3 HC Rajesh Kumar, PW5 S.I. Rishi Raj and PW7 Dy. S.P. Hemant Kumar. 38. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon its case mainly on the statements of PW1 Constable Pramod Kumar, PW3 HC Rajesh Kumar, PW5 S.I. Rishi Raj and PW7 Dy. S.P. Hemant Kumar. In case, the entire evidence as led by these main witnesses as per the version of the prosecution is seen, it emanates that the statements are full of contradictions and the same are doubtful. 39. PW3 HC Rajesh Kumar while entering in the witness box has deposed that they reached on the spot at 4.00 a.m. in the morning and thereafter they reached at the police station at 5.30 a.m. On the contrary, PW7 Hemant Kumar stated that departure time of the policy party was 11.30 p.m. from police station and they reached on the spot at 3.00 a.m. He further stated that the police party reached back at the police station at 2.00 p.m. When the statements of these witnesses are conjointly read, it reveals that in the statements of PW1 Constable Pramod Kumar, PW3 HC Rajesh Kumar and PW7 Hemant Kumar, there is contradiction regarding the members of the raiding party. Apart from the contradiction with respect to members of the raiding party, such persons are not mentioned in the list of witnesses. It clearly creates doubt in the prosecution story and it also raises suspicion. 40. PW1 Constable Pramod Kumar in his cross-examination has stated that Hira Lal, driver, returned from the spot in his vehicle No.HP-03-2072 before nabbing of the accused. He further stated that he does not remember when I.O. obtained the signatures of driver Hira Lal over Ext.PW1/A. The perusal of Ext. PW1/A shows that memo of ‘Jama Talashi’ bears the signatures of Hira Lal. The said contradiction has not been explained by the prosecution, as a result of which, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution. 41. The statements of the official witnesses are full of variations. As per PW1, all the contents of Ext.PW1/A, Ext. PW1/B and NCB form were written in one go from top to bottom and same fact has also been admitted by the I.O. PW7. Then the crucial question which arose is that how and under what circumstances, the FIR number has been entered on these documents prior to its registration or sending of rukka to police station. PW1/B and NCB form were written in one go from top to bottom and same fact has also been admitted by the I.O. PW7. Then the crucial question which arose is that how and under what circumstances, the FIR number has been entered on these documents prior to its registration or sending of rukka to police station. Exhibit PW1/A reveals that the same has been written in one go from top to bottom. Similarly, Ext. PW1/B shows that number of FIR under sections 18, 20 NDPS Act has been inserted in one go. Even, the NCB form has been written from top to bottom in one go and it consists FIR number under sections 18 and 20 of NDPS Act. 42. The material contradictions in the statements of PW1, PW5 and PW7 regarding use of measures of weights are apparent on the face of the record. PW1 in his statement has categorically stated that these were 50, 100, 200 and 500 grams of weights. PW5 in his testimony has stated that there were 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 grams traditional weights and lastly PW7 has deposed that they were 500, 100 and 200 grams of weights. The testimonies of all these official witnesses are not matching with each other and each of the witnesses has a different story to tell with respect to the use of measures of weights. 43. A scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses reveals and as can be deciphered that in their statements PW1, PW3 and PW5 have admitted that they do not know who had written memo Ext.PW1/A and rukka Ext. PW1/B. Even the recovery witness has shown his ignorance by stating that he is not aware who had scribed the said memos. It creates doubt in the story of the prosecution and version which has been put-forth for convicting the respondent. Though, the prosecution has tried to prove that Rishi Raj was a spot witness, but, from the perusal of Ext. PW5/B (sample seal on cloth), the signatures of said Rishi Raj are missing. The said fact also creates doubt regarding his presence on the spot. 44. The perusal of NCB-I form shows that columns No. 1 to 8 were filled with the same pen and on the same FIR number has been incorporated. PW5/B (sample seal on cloth), the signatures of said Rishi Raj are missing. The said fact also creates doubt regarding his presence on the spot. 44. The perusal of NCB-I form shows that columns No. 1 to 8 were filled with the same pen and on the same FIR number has been incorporated. As a matter of fact, NCB-I form was filled at the time of preparation of memo Ext.PW5/C. Therefore, FIR number in common parlance should have been filled on the NCB form lateron, however, in the present case, it has been done otherwise. 45. The Investigating Officer i.e. PW7 Hemant Kumar has stated in his deposition that he had only filled one NCB form in triplicate for both ‘charas’ and opium. The said statement is in conflict with the statement of PW5, who has stated that he is not aware whether one NCB form for both ‘charas’ and opium was prepared or two NCB form in triplicate were prepared separately qua opium and ‘charas’. The statements of PW7 and PW5 are contradictory to each other. 46. The surprising fact in the present case is that the Investigating Officer of the case had appended his signatures on the consent memo Ext.PW5/A, ‘Jama Talashi’ Ext.PW1/A, recovery memo Ext.PW5/C and arrest memo Ext.PW6/D. However, when confronted in the statement, he has admitted that he is not aware who had written these important documents which casts doubt in the story as projected by the police. In his statement, the Investigating Officer (PW7) Hemant Kumar has admitted that he cannot tell who scribed the consent memo Ext.PW5/A under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further admitted that he is not aware who had scribed Ext.PW1/A and Ext.PW1/B. In the same breath, he has stated that he cannot tell who had scribed recovery memo Ext.PW5/C and arrest memo Ext.PW6/D. 47. The main witnesses of the prosecution have not been able to point out that who had written the documents, especially, Ext.PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B, Ext.PW5/A, Ext.PW5/C and Ext.PW6/D. From the said facts and circumstances, it emanates that the statements and the versions of these official witnesses are not trustworthy, convincing and cogent. 48. PW7 in his testimony has stated that the recovered ‘charas’ was weighed with a traditional scale and weight of the ‘charas’ was found to be 400 grams. 48. PW7 in his testimony has stated that the recovered ‘charas’ was weighed with a traditional scale and weight of the ‘charas’ was found to be 400 grams. However, he has stated that when the recovered opium was weighed, its weight was found to be 500 grams. He has stated that both opium and ‘charas’ were repacked in the same manner and sealed in two separate cloth parcels which were sealed with six seals of ‘C’ each. Exhibit PX is the SFSL report and it shows the weight of ‘charas’ to be 386 grams. Similarly, the weight of the opium was given in the SFSL report to be 480 grams which clearly shows that there is reduction in the net weight of the contraband i.e. ‘charas’ and opium’. When the said inconsistency was pointed out to the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, he failed to give any proper explanation with regard to reduction of weight. 49. The story of the prosecution also becomes doubtful on perusal of SFSL report Ext.PX. It has been tried to be projected that the police officials sent the contraband for FSL vide Road Certificate No.27/10, however, there is no reference of the same in Ext.PX which creates doubt on the same. 50. The prosecution mainly relied upon the official witnesses PW1, PW3, PW5 and PW7. However, from the overall analysis of their statements and documentary evidence placed on record, it is clear that the version of the prosecution is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, as a result of which, the prosecution has failed to link the respondent with the commission of the said offence. 51. The learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court below has rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges. 52. It is well settled proposition of law that the prosecution in order to prove its case must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the said person. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the said person. 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. 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. 53. It is settled law that the suspicion, howsoever 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 howsoever strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 54. The prosecution has failed to fulfill the aforesaid parameters. Therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges and passed a judgment of acquittal in favour of the respondent. 55. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. 56. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are discharged. 57. Records be sent down.