JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No. 228/98 on the file of the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Bundi. He was found guilty Under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act), convicted thereunder and sentenced to 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R.l.) 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to. 3. On February 27, 1994, a preventive party was organised under the leadership of Satyaveer Singh Inspector for interception of illicit drug traffickers. Bus No. RJ-14/P-1177 plying between Kota and Jaipur was stopped at the check point and subjected for legal search in the presence of driver and conductor. A passenger sitting at Seat No. 31 of the bus was found suspicious by appearance. On interrogation he disclosed his identity. When inquired about his luggage, he disclosed that he had one suitcase which he kept in the rear dickey of the bus. The suitcase was searched which resulted in recovery and seizure of one Kg. of opium. The opium was kept concealed in the specially made secret chamber at the false bottom of the suitcase. Legal formalities were completed and the accused was arrested. On the basis of information of accused Gordhan Singh, co-accused Gopal Singh was also arrested. Charge-sheet of the case was filed. Charge Under Section 8/18 of the Act was read over to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Statement of the accused Under Section 313 Cr.RC. was recorded. No defence witness was produced by the accused. Learned trial court after hearing the final arguments convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated hereinabove. Charge against co-accused Gopal Singh was not proved and he stood acquitted. 4. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the accused canvassed that the prosecution has flouted the provisions of search and seizure contained in the NDPS Act. Satya Narayan Sharma PW 1, has specifically stated that his signatures were obtained by the search party on the blank papers but this fact was not appreciated by the court below. 4. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the accused canvassed that the prosecution has flouted the provisions of search and seizure contained in the NDPS Act. Satya Narayan Sharma PW 1, has specifically stated that his signatures were obtained by the search party on the blank papers but this fact was not appreciated by the court below. Learned counsel further contended that another independent witness Kishore Singh, the driver of the Bus, was not produced which creates doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution story. It was also urged that the passengers travelling in the bus were not made witnesses and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in respect of colour of material as well as the articles found in the suitcase. Thus provisions contained in Sections 100(4), 165 and 166 Cr.P.C . were not followed and Rule 6.24 of the Rajasthan Police Rules were violated. The accused, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the accused was rightly convicted. 6. In order to appreciate the submission advanced before me, I closely scrutinised the material on record. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 257 propounded that search of baggage of a person is not the same thing as the search of the person himself. If a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance is found from it, it cannot be said that it was found from his person. Hence provisions contained in Section 50 N.D.PS. Act did not attract. In the instant case admittedly the suitcase was kept in the rear dickey of the bus, therefore, it can safely be held that compliance of the safeguards contained in Section 50 N.D.PS. Act was not required. 8. In so far as compliance of the provisions of Section 100 (4) 165 and 166 of Cr.RC. as well as Rule 6.24 of the Rajasthan Police Rules is concerned, it is established from the record that about fifty passengers were travelling in the bus but non e of them was made witness. The search was affected in the presence of Driver Kesar Singh and Conductor Satya Narain but the prosecution did choose to examine only Satya Narain before the trial Court. The search was affected in the presence of Driver Kesar Singh and Conductor Satya Narain but the prosecution did choose to examine only Satya Narain before the trial Court. I am not convinced with the submission of learned counsel for the accused that provision of Section 100 (4) 165 and 166 Cr.P.C. were not complied with by the Investigating Officer, and even if the search is held to be per se illegal, then also it would not vitiate the trial. The effect of non-compliance with the provisions of the Cr.RC., has to be born in mind while appreciating the evidence, as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab, v. Baidev Singh ( 1999 (6) SCC 172 ). 9. I now proceed to consider the prosecution evidence. Conductor Satya Narain (PW 1) states that the accused Gordhan Singh was travelling, while sitting on Seat No. 31. Accused owned the suitcase and got it opened by a key possessed by him. Material of brown colour found in the suitcase was seized and sealed. Ticket bearing Seat No. 31 was also seized from the possession of the accused. Seizure memos were attested by him. Though in the cross-examination Satya Narain states that he also put his signatures on some blank papers but in so far as his testimony in respect of recovery of opium and ticket is concerned, it could not be shattered in the cross-examination. Satya Narain is an independent witness and from his testimony following facts are established : (a) Accused Gordhan Singh was sitting on Seat No. 31. (b) Accused was possessing Ticket bearing Seat No. 31. (c) Accused confessed before Satya Narain that suitcase bearing No. 31 belongs to him. (d) Accused was possessing the Key of Suitcase. (e) Accused identified suitcase as his own and opened it from the key possessed by him. (f) Brown material was found in the suitcase which was opium. (g) The material and Ticket were seized and sealed by the search party in his presence and he put his signatures on seizure memos. 10. Testimony of Satya Narain (PW 1) was corroborated in material particulars by Satya Pal Singh (PW 2), Raghunath (PW 4) Satyaveer Singh (PW 5) and Kamal Kumar Kothari (PW 6). In the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. 10. Testimony of Satya Narain (PW 1) was corroborated in material particulars by Satya Pal Singh (PW 2), Raghunath (PW 4) Satyaveer Singh (PW 5) and Kamal Kumar Kothari (PW 6). In the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. the accused only stated that he was not searched but did not say that his suitcase was not searched, though he was pointedly asked whether his suitcase was searched? I have also closely scanned the recovery memos. Vide recovery memo Ex. 5, the Ticket bearing Seat No. 31 was seized. It bears the name Gobardhan. The prosecution witnesses were not cross- examined to established this fact that 'Gordhan' and 'Gobardhan' were two different persons. Thus it is also established beyond reasonable doubt that the ticket bearing seat No. 31 was issued to the accused and at the time of search it was in his possession. It is difficult to agree with the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. If one witness says colour of material found in suitcase was brown and another says it was black, it hardly makes any difference because recovery of material is established and after chemical analysis it was found to be opium. Testimony of witness Satya Narain (PW 1) is of sterling worth and it cannot be disbelieved in the facts and circumstances of this case. Non-examination of driver Kesar Singh is thus not fatal. 11. Resultantly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed -on accused appellant. The appeal has no merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Record of the case be sent backAppeal dismissed. *******