JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The present appeal through Jail has been preferred by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused, against the judgment dated 5.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Solan, in Case No. l-S/7 of 1998 whereby the accused has been convicted of the offence under Section 20, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short: the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh. In default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. The prosecution story, briefly, may be stated thus. On 17.3.1997 PW 13, ASI Pushap Lata, Incharge Traffic Solan, while on duty at a crossing received secret information that a person of particular description/was coming in a bus from Nahan carrying "Charas". A report about this was got recorded by her at Police Post City, Solan. She then associated PW-12 ASI Chaman Lai and Constable Rakesh Kumar and Dalip Singh. They posted themselves at the road crossing in front of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan. At about 10 a.m. or 10.30 a.m. a HRTC bus from Habban arrived and stopped at the bus stand near the crossing where the buses usually stop. The police party closed the back door of the bus. Passengers were allowed to alight only from the front door. The person of the given description namely, the accused, was seen alighting from the bus carrying a polythene bag in his hand. He was apprehended. Dy. S.P. Shri Varinder Kanwar was called to the spot through Constable Dalip Singh. The driver Amar Dass and Conductor Pratap Chand of the bus by which the accused had travelled were associated. The accused was asked if he would like to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused vide Ex. PA gave his consent to the search by the police party. During such search, the accused was found carrying Charas in a polythene bag Ex. P.I, which was further wrapped in a cloth bag Ex. P. 3 and kept in the polythene bag Ex. P. 2 which the accused was carrying at the time of his apprehension. The Charas recovered on weighment was found to be 2 Kgs. Two samples weighing 25 grams each were taken out and separately sealed. P.I, which was further wrapped in a cloth bag Ex. P. 3 and kept in the polythene bag Ex. P. 2 which the accused was carrying at the time of his apprehension. The Charas recovered on weighment was found to be 2 Kgs. Two samples weighing 25 grams each were taken out and separately sealed. The remaining quantity of charas was also separately sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB, a copy of which was delivered to the accused. 3. The investigation of the case was thereafter taken up by PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal after the registration of the case on the basis of the report Ex. PW 13/B of PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata vide FIR Ex. PW 12/D. The incriminating article recovered from the accused as per report of chemical examination was found to be charas. 4. After the completion of investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, 5. The prosecution in support of its case, examined fifteen witnesses in all. The case of the accused as set out by him in his examination under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, is that of denial simpliciter and false implication. No defence was led by the accused. 6. The learned Special Judge upon consideration of the evidence led before him, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid vide impugned judgment dated 5.11.1998. 7. The learned Counsel for the accused, while assailing the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Special Judge, has raised the following contentions: (i) There has been non-compliance of Section 43 of the Act inasmuch as the search and seizure has been made by a police officer who has not been empowered in this behalf by the State Government; (ii) There has been non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act; (iii) The prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that search of the accused was carried out; (iv) There has been violation of Section 55 of the Act; (v) Since the complainant herself was the Investigation Officer, the case of the prosecution is doubtful; (vi) The necessary link evidence is missing to show that the article recovered was not tampered with from the time it was seized till the sample reached the chemical examiner; (vii) Independent witnesses not joined and associated during the search. 8. 8. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, on the other hand, has supported the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Special Judge on the grounds and for the reasons set out in the impugned judgment dated 5.11.1998. It was contended that all the necessary requirements of law were duly complied with while carrying out the search and that the offence stands proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. We now proceed to examine the contentions, referred to above, raised on behalf of the accused. Contention No. (i) 10. Section 43 of the Act, which deals with "Power of seizure and arrest in public places", provides: "Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 may— (a) seize, in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under Chapter IV, and, if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public." 11. Section 42, referred to in Section 43 of the Act, deals with "Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation". Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public." 11. Section 42, referred to in Section 43 of the Act, deals with "Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation". It provides : "(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue, intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason t§ believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may, between sunrise and sunset,— (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance: Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior." 12. Placing emphasis and reliance on the words "as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government," the learned Counsel for the accused has contended that there is nothing on the record to show that PW 13, ASI Pushap Lata, who had carried out the search, was duly empowered under Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, since the search was carried out by an officer who has not been duly empowered, such search would be an illegal search and cannot be pressed into service against the accused. 13. We do not find force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the accused that PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata was not empowered under Section 42 of the Act. A bare reading of the section shows that all such officers superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable belonging to the revenue, drugs control, excise and police are empowered under Section 42 of the Act by virtue of their office. It is only in case of an officer belonging to "any other department of a State Government" that a general or special order by the State Government is required empowering them under Section 42 of the Act. The word "or" appearing after the word "police" and before the words "any other department of a State Government" has to be read disjunctively in order to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature. So reading, it is evident that the words "as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government" are to be read only with the words "any other department of a State Government. Therefore, PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata being a police officer superior in rank to a constable, is an officer duly empowered under Section 42 of the Act. 14. Therefore, PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata being a police officer superior in rank to a constable, is an officer duly empowered under Section 42 of the Act. 14. Assuming for the sake of arguments that all officers, superior in rank to a constable, of the police are also required to be specifically empowered under Section 42 of the Act, even then PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata would be deemed to be an officer empowered under Section 42 of the Act in view of the transitional provisions contained in Section 74 of the Act. Such provisions read: "Every officer or other employee of the Government exercising or performing, immediately before the commencement of this Act, any powers or duties with respect to any matters provided for in this Act, shall, on such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed under the relevant provisions of this Act to the same post and with the same designation as he was holding immediately before such commencement." 15. The scope and ambit of Section 74 of the Act was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar and etc., 1989 Cri. LJ 1412. The accused therein was discharged by the learned Special Judge on the ground that the Sub Inspector of Police who carried out the search and arrest was not empowered under Section 42 of the Act. Setting aside the order of discharge, it was held that in view of the transitional provisions contained in Section 74 of the Act, every officer exercising or performing any power or duties with respect to any matter provided for in the Act immediately before the commencement of the Act shall continue to do so after the commencement of the Act. 16. The learned Counsel for the accused has not addressed any argument to establish that PW 11 ASI Pushap Lata was not exercising or performing the powers or duties with respect to the matters provided for in the Act immediately before the commencement of the Act and as such was not empowered to exercise the -power under Section 42 of the Act by virtue of the transitional provisions contained in Section 74 of the Act. 17. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Soran Singh, 1998 (1) Sim. 17. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Soran Singh, 1998 (1) Sim. L.J 8461, a question arose whether the Chemical Examiner appointed under the repealed Opium Act prior to coming into force of the Act was competent and authorised to examine and analyse the sample under the Act. A Full Bench of this Court of which both of us were members by applying the transitory provisions contained in Section 74 read with Section 82 of the Act held that such a Chemical Examiner was competent to analyse the sample and to submit his report. 18. There is yet another aspect of the case. Assuming that PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata was not authorised to carry out the search, the invalidity of the search or seizure would not vitiate the prosecution, unless such invalid search and/or seizure has resulted in causing prejudice to the accused. [See Rekha Parameswari alias Gnanabigal Muthiah v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 1992 Cri. L.J. 901]. 19. Nothing has been pointed out to us during the course of hearing to show that a prejudice has been caused to the accused due to invalid search/seizure. Contention No. (ii) 20. It is by now well settled that on prior information, the empowered officer while acting under Section 43 must comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act before the search of the person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires, he shall be produced before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate as provided thereunder. It is obligatory on the part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. Failure to inform the person to be searched and if such person so requires, failure to take him to the gazetted officer or the Magistrate would amount to non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act, which is mandatory and there it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. [See : State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872]. 21. It is equally well settled that there is no presumption regarding compliance of Section 50 of the Act and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the compliance. [See Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and others v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (2) Crimes 182 (SC)]. 22. Ex. 21. It is equally well settled that there is no presumption regarding compliance of Section 50 of the Act and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the compliance. [See Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and others v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (2) Crimes 182 (SC)]. 22. Ex. PA is the memo alleged to have been served by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata on the accused informing him that since he was suspected to be in possession of "Charas" his search was required and that if so desired the search could be carried out before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused gave his consent to be searched by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. 23. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, has denied having consented to be searched by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. While denying having given the consent, he has neither denied his signatures on Ex. PA nor it is his case that his signatures on Ex. PA were obtained under force or threat. 24. The question whether the accused had consented to being searched by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata or not is a question of fact and has to be determined on the basis of evidence coming on record. 25. PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata has categorically stated that the accused in the presence of the driver Amar Dass Conductor Pratap Chand (PW 1) had given his consent vide Ex. PA to his search by her. PW 12 ASI Chaman Lai, who was accompanying PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata has also stated that ASI Pushap Lata in the presence of Shri Amar Dass and Pratap Chand, had obtained the consent of the accused about his search by her vide Ex. PA. PW 1, Pratap Chand, the Conductor of the bus in which the accused had travelled, has also supported PW 13 by stating that the accused vide Ex. PA had consented to the search by PW 13. 26. Nothing could be elicited from the above witnesses to show that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The minor contradictions appearing in the statements of the above witnesses as to the exercise of option by the accused vide Ex. PA pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused are of no consequence. 27. Ex. 26. Nothing could be elicited from the above witnesses to show that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The minor contradictions appearing in the statements of the above witnesses as to the exercise of option by the accused vide Ex. PA pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused are of no consequence. 27. Ex. PA contains an endorsement under the signatures of the accused to the following effect:— "I am willing to give my search here to you." 28. As pointed out above, the accused has not denied his signatures on Ex. PA. It is also not his case that his signatures were obtained under force and threat. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, evidence of PW 1 Pratap Chand, PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata and PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal as to the compliance of Section 50 of the Act has to be accepted and the same stands rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge. Contention No. (iii) 29. The search of the accused was carried out by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata in the presence of PW 1 Pratap Chand, PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal, PW 3 iDy. S.P. Varinder Kanwar and Amar Dass driver of the bus. All the witnesses to the search have duly supported the search. PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata has stated that before carrying out the search, she had given her search to the accused. It was contended on behalf of the accused that it is improbable that a female officer will permit a male accused to search her person and will search the person of a male accused. We do not see any improbability in such search. The law places restriction to a search on the person of a female accused by a male officer. There is no such restriction to the contrary. If PW 13 had agreed to her search by the accused and then had proceeded with the search of the person of the accused, no objection can be raised thereto and the search cannot be held doubtful on this score. Contention No. (iv) 30. There is no such restriction to the contrary. If PW 13 had agreed to her search by the accused and then had proceeded with the search of the person of the accused, no objection can be raised thereto and the search cannot be held doubtful on this score. Contention No. (iv) 30. Section 55 of the Act provides that an officer-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 the Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. 31. In State of H.P. v. Sudarshan Kumar (supra) it has been held that the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Act are directory and mere non-compliance thereof would not vitiate trial. The defence is required to show that failure of justice has resulted due to such non-compliance. 32. Section 55 of the Act is only an enabling provision authorising and requiring an officer-in-charge of a police station, within whose local limits seizure is made, to keeping safe custody the articles if and when delivered. Providing of separate seal on the article recovered and sample by the incharge of police station, as required under this section, is only a step provided by the statute against tempering so that quality of substance recovered till it is analysed by the Chemical Examiner, remains the same. 33. In the present case compliance of Section 55 of the Act stands established beyond doubt. The incriminating article, that is, charas was recovered by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. The process of sealing and sampling was carried out by her at the spot and thereafter the case property and the samples duly sealed were handed over by her to PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal, who had taken over the investigation of the case, she has deposed: "From that bag Charas sticks were recovered. Those Charas sticks on weighing turned out 2 kg. in weight. Those Charas sticks on weighing turned out 2 kg. in weight. 25 grams each, two samples were separated and samples were separately packed and sealed in two packets and the remaining Charas 1 kg. 900 grams was also sealed in a separate packet. The recovered Charas and sample packets were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB in presence of witnesses.....Investigation then was handed over to ASI Chaman Lal. Accused and case property was also entrusted to him." 34. PW 12 Chaman Lal has deposed that the case property was produced by him before the Station House Officer, who resealed the same in separate packets with his own seal. PW 11 Shri D.D. Sharma, Inspector, was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Solan, at the relevant time. He has deposed that on 17.3.1997 at about 5.15 p.m. ASI Chaman Lal (PW 12) brought three sealed packets and had produced the same before him. He had repacked such sealed packets and resealed the same with his own seal and were deposited by him in the Malkhana of the police station. 35. None of the above referred to witnesses has been cross-examined by the accused on the aspect of compliance with the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Act. In the absence of anything to the contrary, we hold that there has been compliance of Section 55 of the Act in the present case. Contention No. (v) 36. This contention, on the face of it, is without merit and requires rejection straight away. No part of the investigation was carried out by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata, the complainant. The entire investigation was carried out by PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal, since after the registration of the case on the basis of report Ex. PW 13/B. A bare perusal of Ex. PW 13/B shows that PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata herself had indicated in such report that since she was the complainant in the case, the investigation of the case be handed over to PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal. 37. Nothing has come on the record to show that apart from the initial recovery of Charas consequent upon the personal search of the accused any part of investigation was carried out by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. 38. 37. Nothing has come on the record to show that apart from the initial recovery of Charas consequent upon the personal search of the accused any part of investigation was carried out by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. 38. Even otherwise, had the investigation or a part thereof been carried out by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out simply on this score. 39. The Honble Supreme Court, while expressing displeasure over the practice of a complainant police officer carrying on the investigation of the case, in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339, has observed : "......We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. PW 3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation." 40. A Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar alias Sonu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000 (2) Sim. L.C. 363, has also held that in the natural course if a case 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 on whose complaint the case was registered without showing any prejudice having been caused to the accused, the trial cannot be held vitiated. Contention No. (vi) 41. The learned Counsel for the accused has contended that from the evidence coming on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the sample of the article recovered was not tampered with from the time it was seized and sealed till the time it reached the Chemical Examiner inasmuch as the necessary link evidence is missing. 42. As stated above, the Charas and samples were seized by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. 42. As stated above, the Charas and samples were seized by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. She had sealed them in three separate packets with her own seal "P". These packets were handed over by her duly sealed to PW 12 ASI Chaman Lal who in turn had handed over the same to PW 11 Inspector D.D. Sharma, who had resealed the three packets with his own seal "S". The packets were deposited and kept in safe custody in the Malkhana of Police Station on 17.3.1997, the date of seizure and recovery itself. One sealed packet containing the sample alongwith the sample of the seal and docket was sent by PW 4 Rajesh Kumar, MHC on 3.4.1997 to the Chemical Examiner through Constable Jagdish Kumar (PW 5). The sample was delivered in the office of the Chemical Examiner by PW 5 on the same day, that is, 3.4.1997. The certificate of the Chemical Examiner records that the seals on the packet were intact and tallied with the specimen seals enclosed on a piece of cloth. 43. Much reliance was sought to be placed by the learned Counsel for the accused on the fact that when sealed packet containing the charas was produced in court and received in evidence as Ex. P. 1, the same was found to bear the seal mark of "H" instead of "P", the seal alleged to have been affixed by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata. It was contended that since the packet was found to have been sealed with a different seal, the same was tampered with. 44. During the course of examination of PW 1 Pratap Chand, the sealed packet containing the Charas was produced and received in evidence as Ex. P. 1. The observation recorded by the learned trial Court at the time of production of sealed packet Ex. P. 1 read: "At this stage one sealed packet sealed with the seal "S" produced and allowed to be opened. From the sealed packet another sealed packet bearing impression "H" taken out and allowed to be opened." 45. On the material coming on record, it appears to us that there has been either a typing mistake, while recording the evidence or a mistake in reading the seal impression by the learned trial Court. The seal "S" put by PW 11 Inspector D.D. Sharma while resealing the packet was intact. On the material coming on record, it appears to us that there has been either a typing mistake, while recording the evidence or a mistake in reading the seal impression by the learned trial Court. The seal "S" put by PW 11 Inspector D.D. Sharma while resealing the packet was intact. Nothing was suggested by PW 11 in his cross-examination that the sealed packet was tampered with either before or at the time or after such packet was resealed by him with his own seal "S". Therefore, no benefit can be drawn by the accused on this score. The evidence coming on record establishes beyond doubt that the sealed packets containing the samples and/or the charas were not tampered with from the time the same was seized and sealed till it reached the Chemical Examiner. Contention No. (vii) 46. PW 1 Pratap Chand, the Conductor of the bus in which the accused had travelled to Solan, and Amar Dass the driver of the said bus were associated by PW 13 ASI Pushap Lata, while carrying out the search. There is nothing on the record to show that these two witnesses are not independent witnesses. Mere fact that they are employees of HRTC would not mean that they are in any manner under the influence of the police. It is also in the statement of PW 12 ASI Chaman Lai that none of the passengers had agreed and was willing to join the search. Therefore, it is not a case of non-joining of independent witnesses. Even otherwise mere non-joinder of independent witnesses as required by Section 100 (4), Code of Criminal Procedure, would not affect the legality of the proceedings. [See : Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 411]. 47. In State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, 1998 (1) Crimes 58 (SC), it has been held that acquaintance with police by itself would not destroy a mans independent outlook. Every man must be presumed to be an independent until it was proved that he was dependent of the police. 48. Again in Akmal Ahmad v. State of Delhi, 1999 (2) Crimes 12 (SC), it has been held that evidence of search or seizure made by the police will not become vitiated solely for the reason that the evidence is not supported by independent witness. 49. No other point was urged before us. 50. 48. Again in Akmal Ahmad v. State of Delhi, 1999 (2) Crimes 12 (SC), it has been held that evidence of search or seizure made by the police will not become vitiated solely for the reason that the evidence is not supported by independent witness. 49. No other point was urged before us. 50. As a result, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.