R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Actt) read with sub-section (2) of section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief TCr. P. C. T) against the conviction of the appellant under section 18 of the Act who has been sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of one lakh rupees in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of two years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case mar be briefly unfolded. On 21. 4. 1990 the Inspector of Excise, Purl Sadar (P. W. 6) along with his staff which included P. W. 1 Sub-Inspector of Excise and P. W. 2 Excise constable had been to Sakhigopal area on detection duty. One Magistrate examined as P. W. 6 had accompanied them along with some A. P. R. force. While returning to the headquarters, they halted for sometime on the way at Chandanpur to take betel etc. During their halt, P. W. 2 (Excise Constable) was informed about the traffic of opium by the appellant and this information was conveyed by P. W. 2 to P. W. 5 who immediately with his staff and the Magistrate proceeded towards. Birabalabhadrapur in the jeep. Near Gopinath Jew Temple at Birabalabhadrapur, they found the appellant was talking with P. W. 3. Accordingly P. W. 5 asked the appellant to be present there as he would be searched. P. W. 5 requested P. W. 3 (with whom the appellant was talking and called P. W. 4 to remain present at the spot for sometime so that search of the appellant could be done. P. W. 5 asked the appellant whether he was desirous to be searched in presence of a Magistrate and when the appellant replied in affirmative, after observing all formalities of search and seizure, he searched the appellant in presence of the witnesses and recovered one polythene packet containing contraband opium. The weighment of the opium was done at the spot which came to be 40 grams. After making further search of the shirt pocket of the appellant. P. W. 5 recovered one tin diba containing a small nikitit, one batakara of 20 grams, four coins of different denominations for use as batahra and a small knife M. O. III. The weighment of the opium was done at the spot which came to be 40 grams. After making further search of the shirt pocket of the appellant. P. W. 5 recovered one tin diba containing a small nikitit, one batakara of 20 grams, four coins of different denominations for use as batahra and a small knife M. O. III. After completing other formalities, P. W. 5 arrested the appellant at the spot and brought him to the headquarter along with the seized articles. The opium was sent for chemical analysis and after completing enquiry, prosecution report was filed against the appellant who was put up for trial in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pun which has ended in his conviction under Section 18 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE appellant took the plea of complete denial. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined six witnesses. P. W. 1 was the Sub Inspector of Excise. P. W. 2 was the Excise Constable. Both of them had accompanied P. W. 5, the Inspector of Excise on detection duty. P. Ws. 3 and 4 were witnesses to search and seizure. As both of them turned hostile, prosecution put them leading questions. P. W. 6 was the Executive Magistrate who had accompanied the Excise staff on detection duty. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge came to hold that the appellant was in possession of the opium without any authority and accordingly held him guilty under section 18 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE gravaman of the charge against the appellant was that he was found in an unlawful possession of 40 grams of contraband opiumt on the date of occurrence and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 18 of the Act. Let me examine if the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant was in possession of 40 grams of contraband opium. P. W. 5 has testified that during their halt at Chandanpur he was informed that the appellant was going to his village Birabalabhadrapur with some opium. After having come to know the same, he along with P. Ws. 1,2 and 6 proceeded in the jeep and near Gopinath Jew Temple of village Birabalabhadrapur the appellant was found and he was asked to remain present there. After having come to know the same, he along with P. Ws. 1,2 and 6 proceeded in the jeep and near Gopinath Jew Temple of village Birabalabhadrapur the appellant was found and he was asked to remain present there. The appellant was asked if he was desirous to be searched in presence of the Magistrate and when he replied in affirmative, P. W. 5 searched him and recovered one polythene packet From its colour and smell he could know that the black mass of contents was contraband opium. Its weight was 40 grams which could be known after weighment was done. He also recovered a small nikiti, one batakara of 20 grams, four coins of different denominations and one small knife. They were all seized as per seizure list Ext. 1. P. W. 1 (the Sub Inspector of Excise) and P. W. 2 (Excise Constable) who had accompanied P. W. 5 have fully corroborated the version of P. W. 5 with regard to the aforesaid, search and seizure. They have also stated that the appellant was specifically asked if he was desirous to be searched an presence of a Magistrate to which the appellant replied affirmatively. Nothing substantial was brought out in the crossexamination of P. Ws; 1,2 and 5 to discredit their statement in, this regard. P. W. 6 the Magistrate has stated that he was deputed by the Collector, Pun to go with the Excise Staff in Excise raid and while returning from Sakhigopal to the headquarter on the way at Chandanpur they halted to purchase some betel. There P. W. 5 was told that one person was carrying on illicit business of excise articles and then they proceeded towards village Birabalabhadrapur. Near the temple, the appellant was found and there the Excise Inspector P. W. 5 made search of the person of the appellant. Before search was made, P. W. 5 asked the appellant if he was desirous to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. P. W. 6 further stated that P. W. 5 gave his (P. W. 6ts) identity, by saying that he was an Executive Magistrate. Thereafter P. W. 5 made search of the person of the appellant and recovered the contraband opium and other articles which were seized. P. W. 6 further stated that P. W. 5 gave his (P. W. 6ts) identity, by saying that he was an Executive Magistrate. Thereafter P. W. 5 made search of the person of the appellant and recovered the contraband opium and other articles which were seized. P. W. 5, the Excise Inspector has stated that from the colour and smell, he could know by experience that the contents of the polythene packet recovered from the appellant was contraband opium. The Supreme Court in the case of Baidyanath Mishra and another v. State of Orissa observed that opium is a substance which once seen and silent can never be forgotten because it possesses a characteristic appearance and a very strong and characteristic scent. It is possible for people to identify opium without subjecting into chemical analysis. It is only when opium is in mixture so diluted that its essential characteristics are not easily visible or capable of being apprehended by the senses that a chemical analysis may be necessary. P. W. 5 has further deposed that he sent the opium to the Drug Testing Laboratory, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination and exhibit 2 is the report of the Chemical Examiner who has clearly opined that the substance (sample) is opium on the basis of positive identification. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, there can be no doubt that the appellant was in possession of contraband opium which was recovered and seized as per the seizure list Ext. 1. ( 6 ) SHRI Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the independent seizure witnesses P. Ws. 3 and 4 having not supported the prosecution, the statement of official witnesses regarding recovery of the opium should not be accepted. There is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be acted upon without corroboration. If their evidence is otherwise cogent and reliable, they can be relied upon without seeking for corroboration as they do not stand in a position of accomplice. P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were closely cross-examined on the point of search and seizure and nothing was brought out in their evidence to disbelieve them. P. Ws. 3 and 4 resiled from their previous-statements for which the prosecution put them leading questions. Both of them have admitted their signatures in the seizure list Ext. 1. P. Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 were closely cross-examined on the point of search and seizure and nothing was brought out in their evidence to disbelieve them. P. Ws. 3 and 4 resiled from their previous-statements for which the prosecution put them leading questions. Both of them have admitted their signatures in the seizure list Ext. 1. It is true that the Public Prosecutor was given permission to cross-examine P. Ws. 3 and 4. That by itself does not completely efface their evidence. In view of their admitted signatures in the seizure list Ext. 1 and P. Ws. I, 2, 5 and 6 having stated their presence at the time of search and seizure, the evidence of P. W s. 3 and 4 is not wholly washed off and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel on this scope which is rejected. ( 7 ) IT was submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained as there was noncompliance of the requirements contained in section 50 (1) of the Act which are mandatory in nature. I will presently indicate that this contention has no force. Section 50 (1) of the Act provides that the authorised officer who is about to search any person under sections 41,42 or 43 of the Act shall, if such person so requires, take him to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. As already noted, P. W. 6 the Executive Magistrate was accompanying the raiding party consisting of P. W. 5 and others. The appellant was asked if he was desirous to be searched in presence of the Magistrate P. W. 6 and he having indicated his desire in the affirmative, search of the person of the appellant was made in presence of the Magistrate P. W. 6. Thus, the provision of Section 50 (1) has been substantially complied with and its purpose has been achieved. ( 8 ) IN view of the factual position of this case, it is not necessary to refer to the different citations made by the learned counsel on this point. Thus, the provision of Section 50 (1) has been substantially complied with and its purpose has been achieved. ( 8 ) IN view of the factual position of this case, it is not necessary to refer to the different citations made by the learned counsel on this point. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Banka Das v. State of Orissa, had the occasion to interpret the provisions of section 50 (1) of the Act. A. Pasayat, J. in paragraph -6 of the judgment has observed:a close reading of the provision makes it clear that in all cases it is not necessary to take the person to the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; as the case may be. It is only when the person to be searched so requires, he has to be taken. The pre-requisite for taking the person to be searched is the requisition of the person concerned. Sub-Section (1) of section 50 does not cast any obligation on the concerned official to inform the person to be searched that he has the option of making a requisition to be taken before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. After referring to similar provision contained in section 102 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 19-A of the Foreign andchange Regulation Act, 1947, it was further observed:i the absence of any stipulation in section 50 (1) of the Act, the concerned officialhas no duty to inform the person that if he desires he may be brought before the nearest Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, as the case may be. Even if such information has not been given, there is no infraction. The obligation arises only when the person so require (Emphasis added) G. B. Patnaik, J. has endorsed the aforesaid view. L. Rath, J. after considering the matter at length, in a separate judgment in paragraph 46 has observed as follows:the hence has to be held that section 50 enjoins a duty upon the officer to inform the person of his right and make a contemporaneous entry in his records of the facts of the person having been informed as also his reaction on such information given and whether he has carried out the request of the person concerned if he exercises his right under the section. The records should also say whether the offer was made in presence of witnesses. The records should also say whether the offer was made in presence of witnesses. While this must be the general rule, yet its exception may also be contemplated, because justifiably there maybe cases where observance of the procedure becomes impossible, but then in such cases the officer must be in a position to show, either by the records or through evidence if his action is challenged, that he had justification for his conduct and the matter would, thereafter, be for consideration before the Court. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel then submitted that no other person having been called to witness recovery from the appellant, conviction cannot be sustained and in this connection he has retired to a decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh v. The State. There is no substance in the argument in view of my specific finding that P. Ws. 3 and 4, the two independent witness called by P. W. 5 were present at the time of search. ( 10 ) SHRI Mohanty further submitted that after arrest of the appellant and seizure of the opium, there was no report of the particulars of such arrest and seizure by P. W. 5 to his immediate superior officer as required under section 57 of the Act. In support of this submission, he has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Zubeda Khatoon v. The Assistant Collector or Customs, Legal Bangalore. I do not find any merit in this submission. Non-reporting of such arrest and seizure by P. W. 5 to his official superior does not ipso facto result in acquittal of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that P. W. 5 had not reported the matter to his immediate superior officer. In any case, such non-reporting may amount to procedural infirmity by P. W. 5 but it does not by itself vitiate the conviction of the appellant. ( 11 ) NO other substantial point was urged on behalf of the appellant. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.