JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.5.1998/4.5.1998 passed by Sessions Judge (exercising the powers of Judge Special Court), Kangra at Dharmashala whereby he was convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine the appellant is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.11.1997 the patrolling party headed by A.S.I. Baldev Ram PW-7 in the company of Nirmal Singh PW-2 the then Municipal Counsellor of Municipal Council, Dharamahala, were proceeding towards Bhagsunag. When they reached near rain shelter, they found the appellant trying to conceal himself behind the rain shelter, which raised suspicion and A.S.I. Baldev Ram decided to search the appellant. After giving his personal search A.S.I. Baldev Ram in the presence of Nirmal Singh PW-2 and one Rajiv Kumar searched the appellant and found a material like Charas in the form of Batties concealed in the belt around his waist under the sweater. The recovered material like Charas was weighed and found to be 860 gms. out of which two samples of 25 gms. each were separately sealed with the seal impression H\ The seal after its use was handed over to Nirmal Singh PW-2. On confirmation that the material like Charas was in fact Charas as per the report of Chemical Examiner, the challan was put up and the case was tried by the Special Court, which resulted into the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 3. On the basis of prosecution evidence the Special Judge has come to the conclusion that since it was a case of chance recovery, the compliance of Section 50 of the Act was not required. The Special Judge has further come to the conclusion that after the recovery the provisions of the Act have been duly followed. The Special Judge has also found that the appellant has only denied the recovery of Charas but not his personal search. The discrepancies pointed out in the statements of Nirmal Singh PW-2 and Investigating Officer Baldev Ram PW-7 are also not found material as discussed in paragraph 24 of the judgment. 4. The Special Judge has also found that the appellant has only denied the recovery of Charas but not his personal search. The discrepancies pointed out in the statements of Nirmal Singh PW-2 and Investigating Officer Baldev Ram PW-7 are also not found material as discussed in paragraph 24 of the judgment. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that from the evidence on record the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The first submission made by the learned Counsel is that the grounds of arrest, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act, were not given to the appellant, as the copy of the memorandum Ex. PW-2/C of intimation of grounds of arrest was not found in the possession of the appellant during his personal search. It is argued that had the memorandum Ex. PW-2/C of intimation of grounds of arrest been served upon the appellant, this would have been found in his possession and would have been mentioned in memorandum of his personal search Ex. DA. We do not find any substance in this submission. So far service of memorandum of grounds of arrest Ex. PW-2/C is concerned, one of its witnesses Nirmal Singh PW-2 has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that it was signed by him and served upon the appellant. This part of the statement of Nirmal Singh PW-2 has not been assailed in cross-examination. Otherwise also, this witness, who was the then Municipal Councillor of Municipal Council, Dharamshala had no reason to depose falsely against the appellant. So far memorandum of personal search Ex. DA is concerned, it pertains to the articles found in the possession of the appellant and the memorandum of arrest Ex. PW-2/C, which was served upon him before his arrest, need not be mentioned in it. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further urged that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered material like Charas was kept in safe custody till it reached the Chemical Examiner, Government Opium 86 Alkaloid Works, Neemuch (M.P.). PW-2/C, which was served upon him before his arrest, need not be mentioned in it. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further urged that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered material like Charas was kept in safe custody till it reached the Chemical Examiner, Government Opium 86 Alkaloid Works, Neemuch (M.P.). To substantiate his submission the learned Counsel has pointed out that there is no evidence on record to show that the samples were kept in safe custody till these were sent to the Chemical Examiner on 21.11.1997 and reached him on 24.11.1997. According to the learned Counsel the prosecution has not placed on record Daily Diary Report or Malkhana Register to prove that the sealed packets of samples were kept in Malkhana as required under Punjab Police Rules. The docket and road certificate were also not produced to show the transportation of the samples from Malkhana to the Chemical Examiner. There is also no explanation why the samples were not kept in the Malkhana. Learned counsel has also stressed that delay of seven days in sending the samples to the Chemical Examiner is also material to raise suspicion that the samples might be tampered with from the time these were sealed and the time these reached the Chemical Examiner. The learned counsel in support of his submission has further pointed out that Nirmal Singh PW-2 had failed to produce the seal H given to him after affixing the same on the samples. In support of his submission the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments in Safiullah v. State (Delhi Administration), 1993 (1) Crimes 204; Deep Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1995 (2) Sim. L.C. 256; Dud Nathv. The State of (Union Territory) Chandigarh, 1997 Cri L.J, 2050 and Satinder Singh v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi), 1998 (2) Crimes 102. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant we will examine the evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the safe custody of the samples during the period these remained with the police. The independent witness Nirmal Singh PW-2 has categorically stated that on opening a zip of the belt of the appellant some Batties of Charas were recovered, which on weighing were found 860 gms.; out of which two packets of 25 gms. The independent witness Nirmal Singh PW-2 has categorically stated that on opening a zip of the belt of the appellant some Batties of Charas were recovered, which on weighing were found 860 gms.; out of which two packets of 25 gms. each were made and sealed by affixing three seals of H besides packet of remaining Charas and the seal was handed over to him. This witness has proved recovery memo Ex. PW-2/A by identifying his signatures on it. He has also proved impression of the seal taken on the cloth Ex. P-6, which bears his signatures. Memorandum of personal search Ex. PW-2/B and grounds of arrest Ex. PW-2/C, which bear hs signatures, have also been proved by him. Though he was cross-examined at length but nothing material was elicited from him to shatter his evidence in the examination-in-chief or to show that he was an interested witness. 7. Constable Prem Dass PW-3, who was member of the patrolling party, has fully corroborated Nirmal Singh PW-2 in respect of search and seizure of the material like Charas. He has stated that on 21.11.1997 he was sent to Neemuch with one sample of Charas alongwith docket and sample impression, which was deposited by him with the Chemical Examiner on 24.11.1997. He has further deposed that during this period the sample remained in his safe custody. This part of his statement has not been assailed by putting any question in cross-examination. From the statement of A.S.I. Baldev Ram PW-7 it is clear that on reaching the Police Station at about 5.30 p.m. on 14.11.1997 he handed over the case property to the SHO, Police Station Dharamshala Inspector Kishan Chand PW-6, who in his statement has deposed that after receiving three packets having seal impression H, he affixed his seal with impression ‘Z on them and deposited them with M.H.C. of the Police Station. Again, this statement of Inspector Kishan Chand PW-6 was not questioned in cross-examination. M.H.C. of the Police Station with whom the sealed packets were deposited by Inspector Kishan Chand PW-6, has also been produced. He is Hans Raj Head Constable PW-4, who has stated that on 14.11.1997 Inspector Kishan Chand, SHO Police Station, Dharamshala deposited with him three packets, one containing 810 gms of Charas and two others containing 25 gms. of Charas each having three seals of ‘H and one seal of Z each. He is Hans Raj Head Constable PW-4, who has stated that on 14.11.1997 Inspector Kishan Chand, SHO Police Station, Dharamshala deposited with him three packets, one containing 810 gms of Charas and two others containing 25 gms. of Charas each having three seals of ‘H and one seal of Z each. Two seal (sic sample) impressions were also deposited with him. According to him one sample, two seal impressions alongwith docket were handed over to Constable Prem Dass PW-3 vide RC No. 167/21 for taking them to Chemical Examiner, Neemuch for Chemical analysis. This witness has categorically stated that, "So far the sample remained in my custody, the same was not tempered with by any body." Again, there is no cross-examination of this witness in respect of his statement pertaining to safe custody of the sample sent to Chemical Examiner. 8. Therefore, from the totality of evidence, as discussed hereinbefore, the prosecution has proved that the sample, which was sent to the Chemical Examiner was kept in safe custody and possibility of its being tampered with was ruled out. In fact from the tenor of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the answers to the questions put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the custody of the sample it is clear that during the trial it was never the defence of the appellant that the sample sent to Chemical Examiner was not kept in safe custody. Despite of absence of such a defence it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sample was kept in safe custody, which they have done successfully. In our opinion, period of seven days spent in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner is itself not enough to raise any suspicion that the sample was tampered with. It is undisputed that seal H was handed over to Nirmal Singh PW-2 after sealing the three packets containing Charas including the packet of sample sent to the Chemical Examiner. Non-production of the said seal by Nirmal Singh PW-2 is not material in view of the impression of the said seal Ex. P-6 proved on record by this witness. It is correct that description of the seals, which were found intact on the sample by the Chemical Examiner, has not been given in the report of the Chemical Examiner in the report Ex. P-6 proved on record by this witness. It is correct that description of the seals, which were found intact on the sample by the Chemical Examiner, has not been given in the report of the Chemical Examiner in the report Ex. PW-6/A. But it is of no consequence, as the impressions of the seals were also received by the Chemical Examiner. Hence, it can be safely presumed that before recording that seals were found intact on the sample he must have compared and verified them with the impression of the seal. We need not discuss the above referred to judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as these are on the evidence of each case, hence ratio thereof does not apply to the present case. 9. Another submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the circumstance that the case property was kept in safe custody was not put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, therefore, evidence pertaining to it cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty. To substantiate this submission the learned Counsel has relied upon,the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Tribedi and others, (1995) 4 SCC 262, and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramesh and another v. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) Crimes 566 (P & H). 10. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in these judgments that failure to afford opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused persons results in serious prejudice to them but in the present case in questions No. 15 to 17 of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was put to the appellant that ASI Baldev Ram PW-7 handed over the case property alongwith seal impression Ex. P-6 to Inspector Kishan Chand PW-6 SHO, Police Station Dharamshala, who after affixing seals with impression Z deposited the same alongwith seal impression with the Moharrar Head Constable. P-6 to Inspector Kishan Chand PW-6 SHO, Police Station Dharamshala, who after affixing seals with impression Z deposited the same alongwith seal impression with the Moharrar Head Constable. It is correct that it was not put to the appellant that Moharrar Head Constable Hans Raj PW-4 kept the sample in safe custody and further handed it over to Constable Prem Dass PW-3, who deposited it with Chemical Examiner, Neemuch but it is of no consequence in view of the reply to questions No. 15 to 17 of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the appellant had no knowledge and the nature of the said material. By not putting the said material no prejudice has been caused to the appellant to vitiate the trial. 11. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that investigation was not fair, as it was conducted by ASI Baldev Ram PW-t who was in the capacity of a complainant. Again, we do not find any substance in this submission. It is a case of chance recovery and the major part of the investigation was required to be conducted immediately after the appellant was apprehended. In this background ASI Baldev Ram PW-7 could not postpone the investigation after apprehending the appellant and recovering the contraband from his personal search. It was for him to send Rukka for registration of FIR and thereafter arrest the appellant after informing him of the grounds of arrest and to hand over seized articles to the Incharge of the concerned Police Station and thereafter send report to his immediate official superior as required under sub-section (1) of Section 52 and Sections 55 and 57 of the Act. After depositing the seized articles further investigation such as keeping the seized articles in safe custody, sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner and putting up the challan etc. etc. was conducted by other officers. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339, is not applicable. etc. was conducted by other officers. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339, is not applicable. No doubt in the normal course if FIR is registered on the information received from a Police Officer he should not investigate the case in the interest of fair and impartial investigation but solely on the ground that investigation has been conducted by a Police Officer at whose complaint FIR was registered without showing the prejudice caused to the accused person, the trial cannot be held vitiated. It will be examined in the context of facts and circumstances of each case whether after lodging the FIR it was feasible for the Police Officer to hand over further investigation to another competent Police Officer. No other point is raised. 12. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. Appeal rejected.