Honble DALELA, J. – By the judgment and order dated 17.6.1995, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Churu, in a Special Case No. 93 of 1994, convicted the accused- appellant for the offence under section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the N.D.P.S. Act), and sentenced him to the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. A further rigorous imprisonment for six months was directed in default of fine. Against this conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. (2). I have heard the arguments of both the sides. (3). According to the prosecution, on 27.6.94 in the noon, on Rajgarh (Sadulpur)- Pilani Road, the accused-appellant was searched and from his possession, 5.00 kg. of crushed powdered capsules of poppy was recovered. From the recovered substance, a sample of 30 gms. was taken separately and sealed. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, for chemical examination, whereupon, it was found that the sample was crushed capsules of poppy. The S.H.O., Bhanwar Lal (PW 8), received an information from the informer that three persons from Punjab were landing at the bus station-Radwa with powdered poppy and were proceeding to Hanumangarh by train. Upon this information, a police search party was constituted, which included Panna Lal, Head-constable, (PW3), Mohar Singh, F.C. (PW 7); and two independent witnesses, Abbas (PW 1) and Suresh (PW 2) were also taken. On Rajgarh (Sadulpur)- Pilani Road, the search party checked the accused-appellant and after complying with the necessary provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the search was taken and in the search 5.000 kg. of powdered poppy were recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. A sample of 30 gms. was duly sealed separately. The recovery memo (Ex.P.4) was made and the sample was kept in Malkhana of Police Station, Rajgarh (Sadulpur) under the custody of Incharge, Satveer Singh (PW 6). The sample was then given to Pit Ram (PW 4), who after the necessary formalities in the office of the Superintendent of Police, took the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, for chemical examination. On chemical examination, the sample was found vide report, Ex.P.15, to be crushed capsules of poppy. The necessary formalities in the office of the S.P. were done by Yaseen Khan (PW 5). The necessary investigation of the case was done by Jita Ram (PW 9). On chemical examination, the sample was found vide report, Ex.P.15, to be crushed capsules of poppy. The necessary formalities in the office of the S.P. were done by Yaseen Khan (PW 5). The necessary investigation of the case was done by Jita Ram (PW 9). (4). The accused-appellant was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant in his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. has stated that the prosecution evidence is false. He has examined no witness in his defence. (5). After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. (6). The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that in this case, the provisions of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with and on this count alone, the accused appellant is entitled for acquittal because the said provision has been held to be mandatory by the Apex Court. (7). It is evident that the search was effected on a road, which is obviously a public place. The place where the search was effected was neither a building nor a conveyance. The provisions under Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act are applicable only when the search is made from any building or conveyance. The search effected on a public place is covered by section 42, N.D.P. S. Act and not by section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not envisage any such condition as provided under section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is true that section 42(2), NDPS Act has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court, but in the present case, as stated above, section 42 is not applicable at all. In the case of Umesh Kumar Chobey vs. State of Raj.(1), it has been held that where the search was not made from building, conveyance but from public place, the provisions of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not applicable and the case is covered by section 43, which does not envisage any such condition as provided under section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Thus, in my opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the accused-appellant in this behalf has no force. (8). In this case, the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has been fully complied with. Thus, in my opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the accused-appellant in this behalf has no force. (8). In this case, the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, has been fully complied with. The recovery memo (Ex.P 4) clearly mentions that before making the search, the S.H.O. had asked the accused-appellant as to whether he wants to have the search effected before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and when the accused-appellant had expressed that the S.H.O. can take the search, the search was effected by the S.H.O. Bhanwar Lal (PW 8) has also deposed that before effecting the search, he had asked the accused-appellant as to whether he wants to have the search effected before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and when the appellant had given his consent that the search may be taken by S.H.O., the search was effected by him i.e. Bhanwar Lal, S.H.O., (PW 8). Thus, the evidence of Bhanwar Lal (PW 8) and recovery memo (Ex. P. 4) shows that the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been fully complied with and the learned trial court is correct in holding so. (9). It was next contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appel- lant that it has not been proved that the seals affixed on the sample were intact from the point of taking the sample to the examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, this is sufficient to raise a doubt and benefit of doubt goes to the accused-appellant. (10). A perusal of the entire evidence produced by the prosecution would show that it is fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the seals affixed on the sample remained intact from beginning to end till the sample was duly chemically examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Bhanwar Lal (PW 8) has stated that upon the recovery of 5 Kg of powdered poppy, a sample of 30 gms. was packed and sealed separately and the sealed packets were deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Satveer Singh (PW 6) was the Malkhana incharge of the concerned police station. He has deposed that Bhanwar Lal, S.H.O., gave him the sample duly sealed for putting them into Malkhana and the seals were intact. He has further stated that he issued the sample in the sealed condition to Pit Ram (PW 4). Satveer Singh (PW 6) was the Malkhana incharge of the concerned police station. He has deposed that Bhanwar Lal, S.H.O., gave him the sample duly sealed for putting them into Malkhana and the seals were intact. He has further stated that he issued the sample in the sealed condition to Pit Ram (PW 4). Yaseen Khan (PW 5), an official of the S.P. Office, has deposed that Pit Ram brought the sample duly sealed for getting a letter addressed to the Forensic Science Laboratory. During the time, the sample remained in the office of the S.P., it remained under his (PW 5) custody and during that period, the seals were intact. After the letter addressed to the Forensic Science Laboratory was duly signed, the letter along with the sample duly sealed was handed over to Pit Ram for carrying it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Pit Ram (PW 4) has stated that he took the sample in a sealed condition to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the F.S.L. report (Ex. P 15) clearly shows that the sample properly sealed bearing the impression tallied with the speciman seal impression forwarded and the seals were intact. Thus, from the series of the aforesaid evidence, it is quite evident that seal impression affixed on the sample remained intact from beginning to end i.e. from the time when the samples were sealed till it was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. (11). The learned counsel for the accused-appellant pointed out that Pit Ram (PW 4) has stated that he received the sample from Malkhana on 5.7.1994, whereas Satveer Singh (PW 6), the officer incharge of the Malkhana has stated that he had given the sample to Pit Ram (PW 4) on 4.7.1994. According to the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, this discrepancy is material which makes the prosecution doubtful. But Pit Ram (PW 4) has stated in his cross-examination that he went to Jaipur for handing over the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory in the night at 1.00 a.m. by train. From the receipt (Ex. P7), it is evident that the sample was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 5.7.1994. At 1.00 a.m. in the night, the date changed. Therefore, at 1.00 A.M. in the night the date was 5.7.1994. Therefore, technically. From the receipt (Ex. P7), it is evident that the sample was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 5.7.1994. At 1.00 a.m. in the night, the date changed. Therefore, at 1.00 A.M. in the night the date was 5.7.1994. Therefore, technically. Pit Ram (PW 4) is right when he said that he got the sample on 5.7.1994 for carrying it to Jaipur. Being night and unaware of the fact that the date changes after the mid-night, Satveer Singh (PW 6) thought it to be the date as 4.7.1994, therefore, he deposed that the sample was given on 4.7.94. In my opinion, the discrepancy is not material and the confusion regarding the date seems to be technical rather then real. The statement of Satveer Singh (PW 4) is that he did not go to S.P. office, cannot be accepted in the face of the evidence of Yaseen Khan (PW 5), who has testified that the sample was brought by Pit Ram. Ex. P 8 is the Office copy of the letter of the S.P., addressed to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. In this, Pit Ram (PW 4) has put his signatures and has written therein that the sample mark `B was received by him. This letter is dated 4.7.94. Evidently, he has received the sample duly sealed on 4.7.94. Therefore, the discrepancy which seems to be not real, does not indicate or prove that the seal of the sample was not intact or did not remain intact throughout. In my opinion by the prosecution evidence as a whole, it is sufficiently proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the seal affirmed on the sample remain intact throughout from the beginning to the end, and there is not an iota of any doubt therein. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial court has rightly held that the seal on the sample remain intact throughout. From the evidence of the prosecution as a whole, it is quite evident that the crushed powdered of capsules poppy was recovered from the accused-appellant and the sample therefrom was taken separately and sealed and the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Thereupon, it was found that the sample was crushed capsules of poppy. From the evidence of the prosecution as a whole, it is quite evident that the crushed powdered of capsules poppy was recovered from the accused-appellant and the sample therefrom was taken separately and sealed and the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Thereupon, it was found that the sample was crushed capsules of poppy. Therefore, the offence under section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act is fully proved against the accused-appellant and the learned trial court was justified in convicting him for the said offence. The learned trial court has given the minimum sentence prescribed therefor. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is quite adequate. No other point has been argued and pressed. (12). In the result, this appeal having no force is dismissed hereby.