P. K. BAHRI, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT-RAM Khilawan has filed this appeal challenging his conviction under Section. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1)00,000 (onelakh) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that SI L. C. Yadav (Public Witness 6), when posted in Police Station Naraina, accompanied by SI Rai Singh and Constable Daryao Singh was stated to be patrolling in h Block of Naraina Vihar and at about 6. 10 P. M. he rereived a secret information that a person having opium with him would be coming from the side of Railway lines. He immediately requested 4 or 5 passers-by to Join the raiding party and out of them Public Witness 5 Jai Parkash and Public Witness 8 Mahesh Chand agreed to join the raiding party thereafter necessary Naqabandi was held in g Block of Naraina Vihar and at about 6. 30 P. M. the appellant, was seen coming from the side of Railway lines having one thaila in his right hand. On the pointing out by the informer, the appellant was apprehended and was apprised of the secret information that he would be having opium in his possession and he was offered that his search could be taken in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. On his declining the option, his thaila was searched and it was found to contain two polythene envelopes, one of the polythene envelopes contained opium which on weighment was found to be 310 gms out of which 10 gms was taken, as sample and the same as well as the remaining opium were converted into sealed parcels. The second polythene envelope: contained currency notes of Rs. 3,750 which were also taken into possession. Necessary CFSL form was prepared and a specimen seal was put on the said form. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. Public Witness 5/a which was signed by the said public witnesses as well. Rukka Ex. Public Witness I/a was prepared on the basis of which a case was got registered vide F. I. R. copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 1/. b. Site-plan Ex. Public Witness 6/a was prepared. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. Public Witness 5/a which was signed by the said public witnesses as well. Rukka Ex. Public Witness I/a was prepared on the basis of which a case was got registered vide F. I. R. copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 1/. b. Site-plan Ex. Public Witness 6/a was prepared. The case property as well as the appellant were produced before the SHO who also affixed his seal on the case property and the case property was got deposited in the Malkhana. The sample was later on sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and report Ex. Public Witness 6/b was received from the CFSL showing that the sample gave positive test for opium. One of the public witnesses Jai Parkash (PW5) had turned hostile as he did not identify the appellant as the same person who was apprehended having opium in his possession on that day and at that particular time, and place. He also tried to twist the prosecution case by deposing that in fact, no option was given to the appellant that his search could be carried out in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate if he so desired. He was duly confronted with his statement made to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where these facts stood recorded, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 5/c portion A to A. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has, however. contended that there has appeared serious contradictions in the testimony of various witnesses which throw doubt on the prosecution case. He has pointed out that Public Witness 5 had stated that he and Public Witness 8 were going on a motor-cycle when police party had asked them to join and then they joined as public witnesses whereas Public Witness 8 had deposed that he was going alone when he was asked to join and the other public witness was already present with the raiding party. It is true that these contradictions have appeared in the prosecution case but this court cannot lose sight of. It is true that these contradictions have appeared in the prosecution case but this court cannot lose sight of. the fact that Public Witness 5 is not a truthful Witness inasmuch as he had even refused to identify the appellant as the person from whom the opium was recovered although he admits having joined the raiding party and opium being recovered from one person on that day at that time and at that place who was pointed out by the secret informer. It appears that this witness was out and out to help the appellant so that the appellant could get himself acquitted from this case. Public Witness 6 Investigating Officer SI L. C. Yadav and Public Witness 7 SI Rai Singh have not made any such contradictory statements with regard to the manner in which public witnesses were joined. They gave out the same type of facts as given out by Public Witness 8 Mahesh. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that Public Witness 8 has stated that the police was in a Jeep while the case of the prosecution is that the police party was on foot. He has also pointed out that Public Witness 5 has stated that no option was given whereas the other witness stated that option was given to the appellant that his search could be carried out in prsence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and there also appeared discrepancies as to how many persons were actually asked to join the raiding party and how many persons had gathered at the spot when the recovery was effected and also with regard to the time when the raiding party left the spot or when the Rukka was sent. These discrepancies were also highlighted before the Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that they do not go to the root of the matter. After all when the witnesses make statements-in court after lapse of some period, there are bound to be some minor discrepancies with regard to the-unimportant details of the prosecution Case. It is to be remembered that nothing has come out against the public witness Mahesh as to why he should have deposed against the appellant if the- appellant was not apprehended with the said contraband. It is to be remembered that nothing has come out against the public witness Mahesh as to why he should have deposed against the appellant if the- appellant was not apprehended with the said contraband. The mere fact that he has been driving three-wheeler scooter and earlier he was earning his "livelihood by hawking goods on a cart would not mean that he has been under the pressure of the police. It was suggested to the Investigating Officer in cross-exanunation that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case inasmuch as the appellant had. declined to become a witness for the police in a case and a threat was held out that he would be falsely implicated in a false case. The suggestion was denied by the Investigating Officer. It is not clarified in the cross-examination as to what sort of case was in which the services of the appellant were sought to be obtained. It is not possible to believe that the police would unnecessarily foist a false case on the appellant after joining public witnesses. ( 5 ) THE appellant has come out with the defence version that the money which had been recovered was kept by him for the marriage of his sister and he was lifted from his house and was subjected to beating and his pregnant wife was also not spared. It is true that the Additional Sessions Judge has given a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the said money recovered from the appellant was cash receipts of any sale of contraband like opium. But it would not mean that the defence version that the appellant was lifted from his house and this particular money was recovered from his house has any truth in it. It is pertinent to mention that even the hostile witness Public Witness 5 admits that on that day at that time and at that particular place, as alleged by the prosecution, a person having 310 gms of opium and the currency notes was apprehended. If that is so, the story of the defence that the appellant was lifted from his house is, on the face of it, false. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW1, a neighbour of the appellant which supports the defence version. If that is so, the story of the defence that the appellant was lifted from his house is, on the face of it, false. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW1, a neighbour of the appellant which supports the defence version. The name of DWI Rakesh Kumar was not even suggested in cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses that at the time the appellant was apprehended, the said witness was present. In case the appellant had been forcibly lifted from his house and this was to the knowledge of DWI who is a close neighbour of the appellant, there appears no reason why no complaint was made by him to any higher officer or higher authorities regarding such high-handedness of the police. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the anpellant has argued that it is a requirement of Section 41 read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act that the secret information ought to have been reduced into writing. In the. present case. the secret information was received at about 6. 15 P. M. when the police was patrolling, the area and ,the police was to make immediate arrangement for apprehending the appellant who was expected to come any time as informed by the secret informer. So, the police could not have wasted its time in reducing into writing the secret information at that time. At any rate, in Nathu Rani v. State, 1989 (3) Delhi Lawyer 38 (1) a Single Judge of this Court has interpreted Section 42 of the NDPS Act to mean that it is not incumbent upon an officer to reduce into writing the secret information and at any rate, this requirement is also only directory and not mandatory. It has been held that only if the secret information is reduced into writing that the same is required to be sent to the superior officer. ( 8 ) SECTION 42 (1) lays down that any such officer. . . . . . . . . . has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset search that building, conveyance or enclosed place. . . . . . . . . . has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset search that building, conveyance or enclosed place. This particular provision does not lay down that if the personal search of any person is carried out at any place who is suspected of having in his possession, the officer is bound to reduce into writing the secret information received by him regarding any such person. So the very reading of Section 42 makes it evident that the same is not applicable to the present case where search of the appellant bag been carried out at a public place and not in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has also made reference to Kailash Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times 145 (2) wherein this Court has observed that it is incumbent upon the police parties to see that the salutary provisions contained in Sections 42 to 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are complied with and these provisions have been made so as to ensure fair investigation of the cases being done under this Act. On facts, it was found that the possibility of the case property being tempered with while it was kept in Malkhana cannot be completely over-ruled as the seals affixed on the case property were not found to be in accordance with the case set up by the prosecution. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has then contended that under Section 55 of the NDPS Act the sample of the case property ought to have been taken in presence of the SHO and as it was not done in the present case, the mandatory provision contained in Section 55 sta,nds violated. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has then contended that under Section 55 of the NDPS Act the sample of the case property ought to have been taken in presence of the SHO and as it was not done in the present case, the mandatory provision contained in Section 55 sta,nds violated. I have construed the provisions of Section 55 in my judgment dated March 19, 1990, in Criminal Appeal No. 1289, David R. Hall v. State (Delhi Administration) (3) and have held that Section 55 does not contemplate that sample cannot be taken by the Investigating Officer at the spot and I have held that if any sample is to be taken after the case property is deposited with the SHO then the same shall be taken in presence of the SHO and in that situation the sample has to be also scaled with the seal of the SHO. The interpretation put on Section 55 in the case of Choteylal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) Crimes 246 , (4) that the sample must be taken in presence of the SHO appears with respect not correct interpretation of Section 55. ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has then made reference to Jayapalan v. State, 1989 (1) Delhi Lawyer 157 (5 ). This judgment was given on different facts. There it was found that the police had deliberately violated the provisions of Section 50 and keeping in view the other facts, it was found that the case of the prosecution was not free from doubt. So. nothing said in this judgment is of any help to the appellant in the present case. ( 12 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has also referred to Gauri Shanker Sharma v. State of U. P. , JT 1990 (1) S/c. 6 (6 ). It has been laid down in this case that the witnesses who are relations of the diseased may be rather interested witnesses but there is no reason not- to believe their statements if they make truthful statements. Nothing said in this judgment can persuade this Court to believe the put up witness like DWI. The learned counsel for the appellant ha? Nothing said in this judgment can persuade this Court to believe the put up witness like DWI. The learned counsel for the appellant ha? argued that Constable Jorawar who had taken the Rukka for registration of the case has not been oxamined as a witness and thus, as the material witness has been kept back by the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. It was not necessary for the prosecution to have examined all the witnesses in whose presence the recovery had been effected. Already four witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to prove the recovery of the contraband from the appellant and thus. omission to examine Constable Jorawar Singh as witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. ( 13 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has also pointed out that in the register of Malkhana it has been recorded that the case property has been deposited not by the SHO but by the Investigating Officer and thus, he would like this Court to hold that the case property was never produced before the SHO. I do not find any merit in this contention. The entry in the Malkhana register shows that the case property was having two seals, one of the Investigating Officer and the other of the SHO. If that is so, it cannot be said with any rationality that the case property was not produced before the SHO. It appears that the entry in the Malkhana register is made on the basis of the recovery memo prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer and Moharrir Malkhana had mentioned the name of the Investigating Officer as the depositor of the case property when in court the SHO (Public Witness 2), Moharrir Malkhana (Public Witness 3) and the Investigating Officer (Public Witness 6) have categorically stated that the case property was deposited in Malkhana by the SHO. I see no reason to disbelieve their statements on this score. ( 14 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has also contended that as the prosecution version with regard to the amount recovered from the appellant being the sale proceeds of opium had been disbelieved by the Additional Sessions Judge, the version regarding the recovery of opium from the appellant should also be considered not free from doubt. ( 14 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has also contended that as the prosecution version with regard to the amount recovered from the appellant being the sale proceeds of opium had been disbelieved by the Additional Sessions Judge, the version regarding the recovery of opium from the appellant should also be considered not free from doubt. The mere fact that ths prosecution has not been able to procure any evidence in investigation to show that the said amount recovered from the appellant was the cash receipts of the sale of contraband does not mean that the prosecution version with regard to recovery of opium is also doubtful. ( 15 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge in his well considered Judgment has dealt with every aspect of the case and had brought home the charge to the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt finding the statements of Public Witness 6, Public Witness 7 and Public Witness 8 as trustworthy and convincing. I entirely agree with the reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge for believing the statements of the said witnesses and I find no ground to interfere with the conviction and the sentences of the appellant in this appeal. 1. hence, dismiss this appeal.