The main legal point established is the reliance on credible evidence of possession and conversations, supported by call details, to affirm the conviction under the NDPS Act.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise from a common judgment. The aforesaid appeals are preferred by the appellants/accused against the judgment, rendered on 23.10.2010, by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehr, H.P., in NDPS Act Case No. 06 of 2009, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for theirs having committed offence punishable under Section 20 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein-after referred to as 'NDPS Act'). In default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2008, the police party headed by SI/SHO Gurbachan Singh, while patrolling at Chalohan Nalla, Police Station, Ani, a person was intercepted carrying a bag over his shoulder. On inquiry, he disclosed his name to be Raj Kumar alias Raju. The police after seeking his option for his personal search either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, he opted for his search before the police. Thereafter, the police also offered their search to the accused. On checking the bag of Raj Kumar, charas kept in a polythene was found and on weighing the same, it was found to be 4 kgs. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out of the same and were sealed separately in separate packets. The remaining charas was put into a separate sealed packet and took into possession after filling up NCB form in the presence of the witnesses. FIR was registered on the basis of rukka sent to the police station. During the course of investigation, it was found that accused Yashpal had engaged accused Raj Kumar for carrying the charas as the call details to the mobile phone recovered from accused Raj Kumar disclosed the frequent calls between both of them immediately before the occurrence.

3. After completion of the necessary investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused/appellants, challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The accused/appellants were charged for theirs having committed offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, by the learned trial Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the Court, in which they claimed false implication and pleaded innocence. In defence, the appellants/accused did not choose to examine any witness.

6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused for theirs having committed offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

7. The appellants/accused are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the accused, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of conviction be reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of acquittal.

8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the Court below, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication.

9. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

10. The first witness, who, stepped into the w