Judgment :- Rajasekharan, J. Conviction of the offence under S.20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the act), is under challenge. The sentence imposed is three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- with default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 2. PW. 5 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. On 31.8.1991 by about 5 pm when he was on patrol duty together with other police officials, he saw the accused sitting on the northern verandah of the KSRTC Bus Station, Thiruvalla. Suspicion arose because of the demeanour of the accused and so PW. 5 approached him and questioned him. The replies were not satisfactory and so further probe was made and the suit case in the possession of the accused was got opened and in that 13.150 kg ms. of ganja was found. On satisfying that the accused was possessing ganja, the same was seized as per seizure mahazar Ext. P1, attested by independent witnesses. From out of the total quantity of ganja, portions were taken for sampling, and that was weighed and sealed then and there duly attested by witnesses. Specimen seal was also taken. Thereupon, PW. 5 arrested the accused and the case registered and proceeded with. 3. In the trial before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked in evidence on the side of the prosecution. Material objects are MOs.1 to5.On the side of defence one witness was examined and a portion of Ext. P1 was marked as Ext. D1. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, the trial court found that the prosecution proved the offence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, conviction was entered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/ accused would urge that there was violation of S.50 of the Act and for that reason alone the appellant is entitled to acquittal. I do not think that it is a case where provisions of S.50 of the Act are attracted. 5. The police party did not have any previous information about the possession of ganja by the accused. During the course of patrol duty, the accused was found sitting in the bus station and some suspicion arose in the mind of the police officer. 5. The police party did not have any previous information about the possession of ganja by the accused. During the course of patrol duty, the accused was found sitting in the bus station and some suspicion arose in the mind of the police officer. So he approached him and questioned him and got the suitcase in possession of the accused opened by him with the key taken from out of the pocket of the accused and in the suitcase ganja was found. It was only after that a chance recovery of the articles found in the suit case, the police party could confirm that it was ganja and the accused was possessing ganja. The search was over by that time and so provisions of S.50 of the Act are not attracted. In the circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of S.50 cannot be accepted. 6. The next argument was that there are discrepancies on material aspects in the evidence of witnesses and that entitles the accused for acquittal. The discrepancies pointed out are regarding the number of keys taken by the accused from his pocket and the balance used for weighing the ganja. One witness said that the accused took out one key and with that key the two locks of the suit case were opened. Another witness would say that there were two keys. MO.5 would indicate that only one key was recovered and so the version by one of the witnesses that there were two keys could only be a mistake when he was giving evidence after a long lapse of time. In the circumstances, the discrepancy does not affect the prosecution case and it is only a trivial matter. The question is whether the suit case where ganja was found actually was possessed by the accused. The fact that it was opened with the key taken out from the pocket of the accused itself is sufficient to show that he was in possession of the suit case where ganja was kept. The number of keys is immaterial. So that aspect does not affect the prosecution case. 7. The prosecution case is that ganja was weighed with the balance provided by PW. 3. That was a table balance usually used by him for weighing fruits the is a fruit vendor near the bus station). The number of keys is immaterial. So that aspect does not affect the prosecution case. 7. The prosecution case is that ganja was weighed with the balance provided by PW. 3. That was a table balance usually used by him for weighing fruits the is a fruit vendor near the bus station). One of the witnesses, that too, a police constable, gave evidence that the samples were weighed with the balance got from a gold-smith. From the circumstances, it can very well be inferred that weighment of samples were not precise, and even though weight was stated to be 5 gms. each, actually it was weighing more than that. That is evident from the certificate of the chemical analyst. The discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses regarding the balance used for weighing ganja is not at all material in the circumstances of the case. Independent witnesses as well as the official witnesses have proved that at the time and place samples were taken and samples were sealed then and there with signature affixed on them by independent witnesses. The seals were in tact when the samples were received by the chemical analyst. The seals tallied with the specimen seal and those aspects give assurance that from out of the article possessed by the accused samples were taken and samples were found to be ganja. The proof of that aspect is enough for the purpose of the case and with what type of balance the ganja was weighed is quite immaterial in the circumstances of the case. 8. It was argued that the officer who detected the offence as well as the investigating officer were one and the same and that has prejudiced the accused. In what way the accused was prejudiced is not shown. By the time the detection was over and the formalities of sampling etc were carried out and the accused arrested and taken to the police station and case registered, practically the major part of the investigation was over. Further, nothing has been brought on record to show that the accused was prejudiced in any way because PW-5 detected the offence and investigated the case himself. The material points regarding detention of the offence or in other words, possession of ganja by the accused had been proved by independent witnesses namely, PWs.1 and 3. PW-5 the police officer is amply corroborated by PWs.1 and 3. The material points regarding detention of the offence or in other words, possession of ganja by the accused had been proved by independent witnesses namely, PWs.1 and 3. PW-5 the police officer is amply corroborated by PWs.1 and 3. They are witnesses who actually saw possession of ganja by the accused and recovery of ganja from his possession. When there is support to the evidence of the police officials from independent source and when there is nothing on record to indicate that the accused was prejudiced in any way, the fact that the officer who detected the offence as well as the. officer who investigated the case are one and the same does not affect the prosecution. So that contention also cannot be accepted. 9. It was argued that there was violation of S.57 of the Act and that aspect would go to the benefit to the accused. The contention is that the matter was not reported to the superior officials in time. That is belied by Ext. P4 remand report which is sufficient to prove that the matter was reported to the superior officials in time, without any delay. All these contentions raised by the appellant excepting that there was violation of S.50 of the Act were canvassed before the trial court and the trial court has made an elaborate consideration of all the contentions in the light of the evidence and circumstances and it has reached the correct conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence. I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the lower court, the appeal has no merit. In the result, the conviction and sentence are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.