JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The appellant was charge-sheeted under section 20(b)(ii) read with section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and he was convicted for the said offence as per the impugned judgment dated 23-3-1994 by the Special Judge (under N.D.P.S. Act) at Greater Bombay in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 722 of 1989. 2.By this judgment and order under appeal the appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. one lac and in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. 3.The case of the prosecution is that on 29-7-1989 P.I. Miranda, P.S.I. Dhange P.W. 3, P.S.I. Kamble and other staff from Nagpada Police Station were patrolling on Maulana Azad Road when they were proceeding towards Sakhali Street. When they reached at the junction of Maulana Azad Road, Sakhali Street, they found that the accused was proceeding hurriedly carrying one blue colour tin box in his hand. On seeing the patrolling staff, the accused was frightened. On suspicion, the accused was intercepted and two panchas were called. In the presence of panchas accused was asked to open the tin box. On opening the tin-box in the presence of panchas, they noticed one plastic bag and two khaki paper bags in the tin-box. They also noticed black colour pieces in the said bags. The officers and panchas smelt the substance. They tasted the substance. After smelling test and tasting test they suspected the substance to be charas. Then a Constable was sent to Nagpada Police Station to collect the seal and sealing material, weighing scale and measures. Police Constable after bringing aforesaid materials, in the presence of panch witnesses and the accused 3 bags were weighed. They were found, collectively 10 kgs. 300 Gms. From each of the bag, 100 Gms. of charas/substance was withdrawn as representative sample. The samples were collected in 3 separate polythene bags. Subsequently, the 3 separate bags, containing samples were packed in khaki-paper. Labels were pasted to these packings bearing the signatures of panchas. Then they were sealed with the seal of Nagpada Police Station. The remaining contraband in the three bags was kept in the respective bags, collected in the tin-box and label was pasted on the tin-box and sealed with the seal of Police Station. The seized property and the sample packets were taken in charge under panchanama, prepared at the spot by P.S.I. Bhange. The remaining contraband in the three bags was kept in the respective bags, collected in the tin-box and label was pasted on the tin-box and sealed with the seal of Police Station. The seized property and the sample packets were taken in charge under panchanama, prepared at the spot by P.S.I. Bhange. Panchanama was started at 18.15 hours and concluded at 19.30 hours. The contents of the panchanama were read over in the presence of panchas. After admitting the contents of the panchanama, panchas put their signatures on the panchanama. The accused, seized property and sample packets were then brought to Nagpada Police Station. P.S.I. Bhange, recorded statement of P.W. 1 as a complaint. The complaint was countersigned by P.S.I. Bhange. Samples were sent to C.A. on 23-8-89 as per forwarding letter dated 31-7-1989 by P.I. Miranda. On 2-8-89, store Havaldar deposited the sample packet in the office of F.S.L. in person. The concerned receiving clerk of F.S.L. put his signature and date on the office copy of the forwarding letter. The sample packets were in a sealed condition in the custody of store Havaldar to deliver the same in C.A. office. On 22-8-89, the C.A. report was received which has been produced before the Court Exh. 20 and it is confirmed that samples were of charas and accordingly on that basis investigation has been completed and charge was submitted against the accused in the M.M. Court, Mazgaon. The case was committed to Sessions and accused was tried. During the trial, the accused denied the charges before the Court. In all three witnesses were examined. P.W. 1 is the constable Vilas, P.W. 2 Maruti, P.W. 3 Investigation Officer Mr. Balkrishnan, Exh. 20 is the C.A. report, which contains the date and the procedure of the laboratory test made by the C.A. Thus, as per the report the samples were of narcotic substance under section 23-A of the N.D.P.S. Act and the test was positive. 4.Mr. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the procedure contemplated under section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, was not complied with. As stated earlier, according to P.W. 1, accused was intercepted by the patrolling party and when he saw the patrolling party, he was frightened. Then they chased accused and accosted him. 4.Mr. Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the procedure contemplated under section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, was not complied with. As stated earlier, according to P.W. 1, accused was intercepted by the patrolling party and when he saw the patrolling party, he was frightened. Then they chased accused and accosted him. They surrounded the accused, he could not give any proper answers or explanation to the questions patrolling party put to him. Then police party on suspicion brought the panchas and in the presence of panchas, he was asked to open the tin box. On opening the tin-box, the police party noticed one plastic bag and two khaki-paper bags and black colour pieces in the said bags. On the basis of narration about the incident by P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 as aforesaid, no personal search of the accused was conducted in this case. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that the procedure contemplated under section 50 has not been adhered to cannot be countered to in the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated earlier, the contraband was recovered not in a search contemplated under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was only a chance recovery. No search of the person of the accused has been conducted in this case. Therefore, the adherence to the procedure prescribed under section 50 does not arise in this case. On a cursory reading of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it will go to show that procedure mentioned in that section need be adhered only in case of search under sections 42 and 43 of N.D.P.S. Act. 5.Next contention of the learned Counsel for appellant is with regard to non compliance of section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Dwelling upon this point, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the contraband article has not been produced before the Magistrate along with the accused when he was arrested. We fail to understand how the section 55 has been violated for not producing the contraband article before the Magistrate along with the accused. Section 55 says: "55. Dwelling upon this point, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the contraband article has not been produced before the Magistrate along with the accused when he was arrested. We fail to understand how the section 55 has been violated for not producing the contraband article before the Magistrate along with the accused. Section 55 says: "55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered:- An office-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station." We have evidence of P.W. 3, Balkrishna, P.S.I. attached to the Nagpada Police Station, Detection Branch. In his evidence, he has stated that the seized property was entered in the Muddemal Register. He effected the entry in the Muddemal Register in his handwriting at Sr. No. 153, at P. No. 185 and it was encircled in the red ink, marked Exh. 18. This will go to show that section 55 of N.D.P.S. Act, has been substantially complied with as far as contraband articles are concerned. Therefore, we find no reason in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the mandatory provision of section 55 has been violated. As we pointed out earlier, the witnesses have spoken before the Court that seizure of contraband article from the possession of the accused has been proved by the P.W. 1, 2 and 3 and their evidence could not be shaken in the cross-examination in any manner. We find no ground has been made by the Counsel for the appellant that warrants interference by this Court on merits. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by Court below has to be confirmed. 6.As regards the sentence as we noted above, the appellant has been awarded minimum sentence of 10 years R.I. for sic the appellant will have to undergo his full term. The Court below has awarded fine of Rs. One lac and in default two years R.I. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think the default sentence is on higher side, therefore, we are inclined to reduce the default sentence to one year from two years. In other words, if the appellant fails to pay fine of Rs. The Court below has awarded fine of Rs. One lac and in default two years R.I. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think the default sentence is on higher side, therefore, we are inclined to reduce the default sentence to one year from two years. In other words, if the appellant fails to pay fine of Rs. one lac he has to undergo one year imprisonment in default instead of two years R.I. Sentence awarded against the appellant by the trial Court is modified to the extent indicated herein. 7.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The sentence awarded in default of payment of fine is modified in the aforesaid manner. In all other respect, this judgment and order of the Court below stands confirmed. Appeal partly allowed. *****