The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and when two views are reasonably possible from the evidence, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Chauhan and C.B. Barowalia, JJ. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") laying challenge to the judgment, dated 27.12.2008, passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2007, whereby the accused/respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20/29-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act").

2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 28.04.2008, police set up a ''nakka'' at place Pungh, Sundernagar. Around 12:30 (midnight) a maruti car, bearing registration No. HR-26AP- 6589, came from Mandi side and was stopped for checking. In the said car four persons were traveling and they divulged their names as Chand Singh, Bhola Puri, Rakesh Yadav and Subhash Chand (the accused persons). On checking the vehicle, the police found a polythene packet in the back side of the seat cover of the driver seat. The said recovered polythene packet contained charas in the shape of ''chapaties'' and on weighing the same it was found to be 900 grams. The police took samples on the spot from the recovered charas for chemical analysis, which were sealed and the remaining charas was also sealed separately. Rukka, Ex. PW-5/B, was sent through HHC Hukum Chand, to police station, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-5/B, was registered. The case property was resealed and deposited in the malkhana. Spot map, Ex. PW-6/A, was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and on receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PW-6/D, challan was presented in the Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein they denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused persons.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 27.12.2008, acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20/29-61-85 of the NDPS Act, hence the present appeal.

5. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respective respondents.

6. The learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that the present is a fit case where the judgment of acquittal is required to be interfered with in order to subserve the ends of justice, as the findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse and the learned Court below has not considered the statements of the official witnesses, which are reliable and trustworthy, in their right and true perspective. He has further argued that the recovery has been conclusively established on record and the presence of the accused persons on the spot further fortifies the prosecution case. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 has argued that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, as the recovery of the contraband has not been proved from the accused persons. He has further argued that the sole examined independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and the other independent witness has not been examined. The statements of the official witnesses are contradictory. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has argued that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are as per the law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, and the same need no interference.

7. In order