JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This appeal is directed by the appellant Duni Chand (accused for short) against the judgment and order dated 26.6.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, (Chamba Division) Chamba, in Sessions Trial No. 8/2000 whereby the accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000. In default of payment of fine, the accused is to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, briefly, may be stated thus. 3. On 26.11.1999 (PW-7) ASI Kishan Dass, Police Station, Kihar was on patrol duty along with Constable Bal Krishan, LHC Jagat Singh (PW 2) and Constable Jaiwant Raj at Meru Nullah. At about 5.30 p.m., they saw one person coming from Grohan side carrying a white bag on his shoulder. On seeing the police party the said person became perplexed and started running. He was commanded by the Police party to stop. On inquiry, the accused disclosed his name and address to the police. Constable Bal Krishan was sent by PW-7 to summon independent witnesses to the spot. PW-1 Pyar Singh and one Jaffurula came on the spot. Thereafter, in the presence of these independent witnesses, PW-7 gave option to the accused whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused consented to be searched by PW 7. He was searched in the presence of the witnesses. On search of the bag, Charas weighing 11 kg. and 200 grams was recovered. Two samples of 25 grams each and two samples of 10 grains each were taken from the recovered charas and the samples were sealed with three seals of Mark K whereas the remaining Charas was sealed with the same seal impression. The seal after use was handed over to PW-1 and the sealed parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PF signed by the accused; PW-1 and Jaffurula witnesses. Copy of the seizure memo was also handed over to the accused. Thereafter, the accused was conveyed the grounds of arrest and was also told about the sentence which could be imposed upon him vide Suchinama Ext. PG. PW-7 arrested the accused and prepared Ruqua Ext, PA which was sent to the Police Station, Kihar through Constable Bal Krishan. Copy of the seizure memo was also handed over to the accused. Thereafter, the accused was conveyed the grounds of arrest and was also told about the sentence which could be imposed upon him vide Suchinama Ext. PG. PW-7 arrested the accused and prepared Ruqua Ext, PA which was sent to the Police Station, Kihar through Constable Bal Krishan. On the basis of Ruqua, Ext. PA, First Information Report Ext. PB came to be registered against the accused on the same day at 8.30 p.m. PW-7 prepared site plan Ext. PH on spot and recorded statements of the witnesses, He took the accused as well as the case property to Police Station, Kihar. The case property was deposited with PW4MHC Des Raj. Special Report Ext. PC was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba. The samples of Charas recovered from the accused were sent for analysis to Chemical Exammer, H.P.C.TL Kandaghat. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PD, the charge sheet was laid before the Sessions Judge against the accused for the commission of the alleged offence. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on careful consideration of the police report found prima fade case against the accused and framed charge against him under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and also placed on record documents to base the conviction of the accused. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded innocence. He pleaded that the police tried to associate him with them on patrolling duty and on his refusal, they threatened him and made a false case against him. He also stated that the police had obtained his signatures on some papers at Police Station, Kihar. In defence, he examined Jaffurula as DW-1 who was left out by the prosecution as its witness. 6. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the entire evidence laid before him, found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 23/26.5.2000. The accused has challenged his conviction sentence in this appeal. 7. 6. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the entire evidence laid before him, found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated 23/26.5.2000. The accused has challenged his conviction sentence in this appeal. 7. Shri Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused while assailing the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Judge has raised following contentions:— (i) That the accused has been arrested on suspicion and the prosecution story is in direct conflict with the defence version and if two views are possible, one favouring prosecution and the other pointing towards the false implication and innocence of the accused, as such the view favouring the innocence of the accused must be preferred over the theory supporting the prosecutions case; (ii) The prosecution has suppressed the prior information qua the alleged contraband and thus the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with; (iii) There has been non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act which has caused serious prejudice to the accused; (iv) The samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory is not connected with the samples taken by the Investigating Officer from the accused on the spot; (v) The total quantity of the contraband allegedly seized is legally not proved by the prosecution and as such it has prejudiced the investigation; and (vij The Police Officer who had seized the contraband and lodged the FIR had carried the investigation in this case, which has prejudiced the case of the accused and therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the state on the other hand has supported the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons set out in the impugned judgment. It was contended that the mandatory and directory requirements of law were duly complied with while carrying the personal search of the accused and that the offence stands fully proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Both the learned Counsel relied upon some decisions of the apex Court and the High Courts which shall be dealt with hereinafter at an appropriate stage. 9. We now proceed to examine the contentions referred to above raised on behalf of the accused. Contention No. (i) 10. Both the learned Counsel relied upon some decisions of the apex Court and the High Courts which shall be dealt with hereinafter at an appropriate stage. 9. We now proceed to examine the contentions referred to above raised on behalf of the accused. Contention No. (i) 10. The independent witness PW-1 Pyar Singh turned hostile to the prosecution. However, it has come in his evidence that on 26.11.1999, the police officials came in police gypsy at Meru Nullah and took him from his tea stall along with Jaffurula (DW-1) on patrol duty in the said vehicle. He has made out a different case in favour of the accused which was not pleaded by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This witness has said that when they were passing through village Grohan, the police party saw a bag lying in a field and on the directions of the police, they picked up the said bag and on opening, it contained Bhang. Thereafter, they returned to the police station with police party where some papers were got signed from him and Jaffurula. However, in his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor he admitted his signatures on recovery memo Ext. PF prepared by PW-7 at the time of recovery of the Charas from the possession of the accused. He has also admitted his signatures on consent memo of the accused mark Ext. PE. He has studied upto 6th class and can read and write Hindi. He has admitted the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that the story of recovery of bag from the field has been disclosed by him for the first time in the Court and he had not disclosed the said fact to anyone else earlier. He is an interested witness who has been taking tea at the tea stall of the accused whenever the accused would go to his village. It has been admitted by him that he had not seen the accused at his tea stall after the recovery of the bag from him by the police. The learned Counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW-1 corroborated by the evidence of DW1 1 who has been left out by the prosecution as unnecessary witness, will prove that the accused was arrested by the police on suspicion, and no contraband was recovered from his possession. The learned Counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW-1 corroborated by the evidence of DW1 1 who has been left out by the prosecution as unnecessary witness, will prove that the accused was arrested by the police on suspicion, and no contraband was recovered from his possession. DW-1 Jaffurula is the Vice President of Panchayat, It has come in his evidence that on 26.11.1999, the police came to the shop of PW-1 where the accused was also present who was requested by the police party to accompany them, but he declined the request of the police and on his refusal, police extended threat to him. He also stated that when he along with PW-1 accompanied the police party, they found a bag containing Charas in the field near the house of the accused. According to this witness, the bag was taken to the Police Station and the police officials obtained their signatures under the pretext that the Charas had been recovered in their presence. He has admitted in his cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor that he had not disclosed the fact of recovery of the bag from the field near the house of the^ accused to anybody prior to the disclosure made by him in the Court. He has, however, identified his signatures on consent memo Ext. PE given by the accused to PW-7 and recovery memo of Charas Ext. PF. He has admitted that on both the documents the name of the accused has been written. He has also admitted that he had earlier appeared as a witness in a forest case in the Court. He also accompanied the police on patrol duty prior to 26,11.1999 when this offence was allegedly committed by the accused. He has admitted the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that he had not signed any paper without going through the contents thereof. This witness is also interested to support the case of the accused as the accused is his voter in the Panchayat election and is known to him since 1996. He has admitted the suggestion of the Public Prosecutor that he had not signed any paper without going through the contents thereof. This witness is also interested to support the case of the accused as the accused is his voter in the Panchayat election and is known to him since 1996. It is no doubt true that PW-1 and DW-1 both independent witnesses have not only tried to support the case of the accused, but they have even gone to plead the case of the accused which was never his defence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was never the case of the accused that the bag containing Charas was recovered by the police from a field near his house and both these witnesses have made out altogether a different defence with a view to protect and rescue the accused from incurring punishment in this case. 11. PW-2 Constable Jagat Singh who was accompanying PW-7 ASI Kishan Dass on 26.11.1999 on patrol duty has categorically stated that when they reached Meru Nullah Bridge, they saw one person coming from village Grohan side who was carrying a white bag on his shoulder. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and started running. The police official commonded him to stop and thereafter apprehended him. They summoned PW-1 and DW- 1 from the tea stall which is situate near the place of occurrence who came on the spot and joined the search of the accused. PW- 2 and PW-7 both official witnesses have supported the prosecution case in its entirety. Huge quantity of Charas weighing 11 Kg. and 200 grams in the shape of Batties (Small sticks) and Golas (small balls) was recovered from the bag of the accused which he was carrying on his shoulder and it is unthinkable and improbable that the police party had planted huge quantity of contraband upon the accused with the sole motive to implicate him falsely in this case. We do not find any cogent and convincing reason to believe the version of the accused that since he refused to accompany the patrolling party, false case has been registered against him. We do not find any cogent and convincing reason to believe the version of the accused that since he refused to accompany the patrolling party, false case has been registered against him. The evidence of both the official witnesses is found to be reliable consistent and truthful and there is no rule of law which suggests that the evidence of the official witnesses should not be given any weight if the same is not supported by independent witness. In State of Gujarat v. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi, AIR 1985 SC 1092, the Supreme Court held as under:— "In appreciating oral evidence, in criminal cases (the instant case being one under Section 5(1) (a) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Penal Code), the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Where the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and reasonable to meet the demands of the situation, but a Court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are Government servants, who, in the course of their duties, or even otherwise might have come into contact with investigating officer and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. For that matter, it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. It is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label." 12. Similar view has been reiterated by the apex Court in State of Assam v. Muhim Barkataki and another, 1987 Cri. LJ 152. 13. It is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label." 12. Similar view has been reiterated by the apex Court in State of Assam v. Muhim Barkataki and another, 1987 Cri. LJ 152. 13. On analysis of the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7 who are the police officers participating in the raid, we are convinced that they are the truthful witnesses and their evidence is sufficiently cogent, reliable and credible to establish the commission of the offence and even if the independent witness PW 1 has turned hostile to the prosecution and the other witness DW-1, both have tried to shield the accused from punishment because of their interestedness, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the evidence of both the official witnesses. It is by now well settled that the evidence of the Investigating Officers cannot be branded as highly interested on the ground that they want that the accused be convicted. Such presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie, public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case. (See State of Kerala v. MM. Mathew and another etc., AIR 1978 SC 1571). 14. In Karuppanna Thevar and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 980, their Lordships have held that hostile witness may not be rejected outright but the court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth and the Court should, therefore, be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence. The statement of PW-1 in the present case suggests that a bag containing Charas was recovered at the spot of the occurrence in the presence of DW-1 Jaffurula. The testimony of police officers PWs 2 and 7 finds corroboration from the documents i.e. consent memo Ext. PE, recovery memo Ext. PF and memo Ext. PG containing information given to the accused regarding his arrest by PW-7 which are written in Hindi and duly signed by PW-1 and DW-1 the independent witnesses. The testimony of police officers PWs 2 and 7 finds corroboration from the documents i.e. consent memo Ext. PE, recovery memo Ext. PF and memo Ext. PG containing information given to the accused regarding his arrest by PW-7 which are written in Hindi and duly signed by PW-1 and DW-1 the independent witnesses. When the statements of PW-1 and DW-1 are taken into consideration in the face of these documents, it can safely be said that these witnesses are not telling truth to the Court and they are interested to shield the accused from incurring punishment. Therefore, the first contention that the accused has been arrested on the basis of suspicion cannot be accepted in the teeth of the overwhelming evidence involving the accused in the commission of the offence. Once it is proved that the accused was apprehended by the police party and on his search, huge quantity of contraband was found from his possession, the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act is attributable to the accused to presume that he was in possession of the contraband which he has failed to account satisfactorily. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel upon Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773; Padam Singh v. State of UP, 2000 (1) Crimes 41 SC; Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 911, to contend that the onus is on the prosecution to prove different ingredients of the offence and unless it is discharged, the prosecution cannot succeed. We have gone through these judgments. The well settled proposition of law laid down by the apex Court in these judgments is undisputed. As stated hereinabove, we find that the evidence adduced in the present case consists only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held him guilty of the crime based upon proper appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution. We have also examined the evidence of DW-1 who is entitled to equal treatment with those of prosecution witnesses. We have found him an interested witness favouring the accused and his evidence proving the accused innocent is not acceptable. Contention No. (ii) 15. We have also examined the evidence of DW-1 who is entitled to equal treatment with those of prosecution witnesses. We have found him an interested witness favouring the accused and his evidence proving the accused innocent is not acceptable. Contention No. (ii) 15. Learned Counsel contended that from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7, it can be safely inferred that they had prior information about the possession of contraband, as such mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by PW-7. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1080; Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 496. On its plain reading, Section 42 would come, into play only when the empowered police officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or prior information given by any person that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substances in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV has been committed, he should necessarily take it down in writing. Provisions of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act are held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court. In the present case, Section 42 is not at all attracted. PW-2 and PW-7 were on their routine patrolling duty along with other police officials and when they reached Meru Nullah Bridge, they saw the accused coming from other side carrying a bag on his shoulder who tried to run away on seeing the raiding party, He was asked to stop by the police officials and on search of his bag, large quantity of Charas was found. The present is a case of chance recovery and not based upon personal knowledge of PW-7 or information given to him by any other person. The contention of the learned Counsel that the police party was patrolling on some specific mission and the patrolling wa§ so important that the police party had not slept throughout the night and has continuously patrolled the area till 26.11.1999 and further patrolling was stopped after the alleged seizure of contraband from the accused is untenable and unfounded. It is in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7 that they became suspicious when the accused became perplexed after seeing the police party and on suspicion, they directed him to stop. It is in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7 that they became suspicious when the accused became perplexed after seeing the police party and on suspicion, they directed him to stop. PW-7 has taken all possible care and caution to summon independent witnesses, namely PW-1 and DW-1 before the consent was taken from the accused for his personal search by the Magistrate of the Gazetted Officer. PW-2 has corroborated the version of PW-7 that the search of the accused was conducted in the presence of the two independent witnesses when the accused consented for his personal search by PW-7 and from his bag, 11 kgs. and 200 grams charas was recovered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 42 is not attracted and therefore, there was no question of reducing into writing prior information by PW-7, the authorized, officer. Contention No. (iii) 16. The learned Counsel next contended that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by the Investigating Officer which has caused serious prejudice to the accused. It is the evidence of PW-7 that after the contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused, PW-1 Pyar Singh was asked to bring scales and weights from his nearby tea shop and thereafter recovered Charas was weighed. Two samples of 25 grams each and two samples of 10 grams each of Battis (small sticks) and Golas (small balls) were taken from the recovered charas and the samples were sealed with three seals of seal bearing impression Kwhereas the remaining Charas was sealed with six seals of the same impression. PW-7 deposited the case property with JPW-4 MHC Des Raj. PW-4 deposed that on 26.11.1999, ASI Kishan Dass had brought four samples duly sealed with sample seal and deposited the same in Police Malkhana which was kept by him in safe custody. On 28.11.1999, he took out one sample of 25 grams sealed with seal bearing impression K with three seals and handed over the sample to Constable PW-3 Amin Chand for being carried to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kandaghat. Shri Kishan Chand (PW-6) was the Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station, Kihar during the relevant time. He deposed that on 26.11.1999, he had gone to Dharamshala. Shri Kishan Chand (PW-6) was the Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station, Kihar during the relevant time. He deposed that on 26.11.1999, he had gone to Dharamshala. Section 55 of the NDPS Act authorizes the Officer-in-charge of the police station to take charge and keep in safe custody pending the orders of the Magistrate all articles seized under this Act within the local area of his police station and which can 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 sample from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. Provisions of Section 55 are directory in nature and in the present case, undisputedly, no seal was affixed by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station upon the seized contraband. It appears that PW-6 could not affix his seed as an officer-in-charge of the police station upon the samples deposited by PW-7 with PW-4 as PW-6 was not present in the police station on 26.11.1999. The contention of the learned Counsel that as there was no re-seal of the samples by the station house officer under Section 55 of the NDPS Act, the possibility of tampering with the samples could not be ruled out is unfounded and cannot be accepted. If there is any such irregularity committed by the Investigating Agency, the same shall not vitiate the proceedings in this case. The decision of Deep Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1995 (2) Sim. L.C. 256, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused, turns out on the facts of that case. It is well settled by now that the defence will have to show that failure of justice has resulted due to non-compliance of the directory provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. In Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (1) Crimes 235, their Lordships of Supreme Court have held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directory and violation of these provisions would not ipso facto vitiate the trial or conviction. In Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (1) Crimes 235, their Lordships of Supreme Court have held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directory and violation of these provisions would not ipso facto vitiate the trial or conviction. The judgment proceeded to hold that the Investigating Officer cannot totally ignore these provisions and such violation will have a bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding the arrest of the accused or seizure of the article. In that case, the Investigating Officer has admitted that the seal which was affixed on the muddamal parcel was handed over to the witness and was kept with him for ten days. The witness also admitted that the muddamal parcels were not sealed by the officer-in-charge of the police station as required under Section 55 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution in that case has not laid any evidence whether chemical analyser received the sample with proper intact seals and it created a doubt whether the same sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser. On the basis of the evidence and faulty investigation by the prosecution, their Lordships came to the conclusion that it would not be safe to convict the accused for serious offence of poppy-husk. The learned Counsel for the accused also relied upon State of H.P. v. Bhike Ram, 1995 (2) Sim. L.C. 335; Thanni Ram v. State of Haryana, 2000 SCC (Cri) 189; State of Punjab v. Tek Ram, 1997 (1) CLR 579, Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1999 i.e. Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., decided on 17.11.2000, Karam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) Crimes 278 Punjab and Haryana High Court, Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 (1) Crimes 444; Punjab and Haryana High Court, Rajesh v. State, 1989 (3) Crimes 638 Delhi, Pradeep Kumar v. State, 1989 Cri.L.J. 2438 Delhi High Court, Chhote Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) Crimes 246; Wilson Dayal v. State, 1993 (1) Crimes 207, Delhi High Court, Bala Ram v. State of Rajashtan, 1993 (2) Crimes 1130, Mansaram v. State of M.P., 1994 (2) Crimes 346 and Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 60 Punjab and Haryana High Court. 17. 17. The ratio of the law laid down in the above said judgments is that if it is assumed that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act are directory in nature, this does not mean that those have not to be complied with. The only fact of such provisions would be that the prosecution has to explain that those were not complied with. If explanation for non-compliance is satisfactory, it has to be seen whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused or not. In the present case as stated above, the prosecution has rendered explanation that the officer-in-charge of the police station was out of station at the time when the seized articles were brought by PW~7 to police station, Kihar and handed over to PW-4. PW-4 has categorically deposed that all the parcels remained intact during the period they remained in his custody. PW-3 stated that PW-4 handed over the sealed parcel duly sealed with seal bearing impression K along with parcel seals to him for taking them to CTL. Kandaghat on 28:11.1999. He took the same sealed parcels to Kandaghat and deposited them in kandaghat on 29.11.1999; He categorically stated that the parcels remained intact during the period they remained in his custody. In the teeth of the satisfactory explanation rendered by the prosecution, we are of the view that non-compliance of Section 55 is a mere irregularity and failure to comply with will not vitiate the entire prosecution case which is otherwise proved against the accused. Contentions No. (iv) and (v) 18. Both the above said contentions can be dealt with together as the same are based upon the same set of evidence of the material witnesses. 19. Mr. Anup Chitkara then contended that the samples received by the Chemical Examiner are not connected with the samples taken, as the sample taken was 25 grams but as per the Chemical Examiners report Ext. PD, the weight was 12.8141 grams only. According to the learned Counsel, less quantity of sample received by the Chemical Examiner has prejudiced the case of the accused as it would prove that the sample so taken was tampered with. Two samples of 25 grams each and two sampels of 10 grams each were drawn by PW-7 from the total quantity of Charas weighing 11 kgs. and 200 grams recovered from the possession of the accused. Two samples of 25 grams each and two sampels of 10 grams each were drawn by PW-7 from the total quantity of Charas weighing 11 kgs. and 200 grams recovered from the possession of the accused. They were sealed with seal K and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PF which was signed by the accused; PW-1, DW 1 and PW-7. The seal was handed over to PW-1 who has turned hostile to the prosecution during the trial and has not supported the prosecution case before the trial Court. PW-4 Des Raj corroborated the version of PW-7 that four samples and bulk parcel duly sealed with seal K along with sample seal were deposited by PW-7 with him which remained intact in the Police Malkhana under his custody and in the supervision of PW-7. In Chemical Examiners report Ext. PD, it is clearly mentioned that on 29.11.1999, one sealed packet bearing three numbers of seals of Mark K was received by him in the laboratory from Police Station Kihar. The weight of the seized article in the laboratory was mentioned 25 grams. It is no doubt true that in the Chemical Examiners report Ext. PD, the net weight . of the article for use in the laboratory was found to be 12.8141 grams. However, in the opinion of the Chemical Examiner, the sample contained contents of Charas. From the perusal of the Chemical Examiners report, the sample was received in the laboratory on 29.11.1999 containing three numbers of seal with seal impression K\ The test was conducted by the Chemical Examiner on 29.1.2000 i.e. after two months of the receipt of the sample. The prosecution has proved that 25 grams of sample was sent to laboratory for test with seal K all the seal was found intact by Chemical Examiner. The apprehension of the accused that the sample was tampered with by the police when it was deposited in the Malkhana or thereafter when it reached the laboratory, appears to be unfounded and untenable. Nothing was suggested by the accused to PWs 3, 4 and 7 in their cross-examination that the seal packets were tampered with either before they were deposited in the Police Malkhana or after they were taken to laboratory for analysis. Nothing was suggested by the accused to PWs 3, 4 and 7 in their cross-examination that the seal packets were tampered with either before they were deposited in the Police Malkhana or after they were taken to laboratory for analysis. The evidence coming on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the seal packets contained the samples bearing seal K were not tampered with from the time the same were seized and sealed till they reached the Chemical Examiner. The deficiency in the weight of the sample article for use in the laboratory cannot be held to be prejudicial to the accused in any manner. Therefore, these contentions being unfounded deserve to be rejected.. Contention No. (vi) 20. The last contention of the learned Counsel that the investigation was not fair as it was conducted by ASI Kishan Dass (PW-7) on whose complaint, FIR was registered and as serious prejudice has been caused to the accused, he is entitled to be acquitted. Again, we do not find any substance in this submission. If the investigation has been conducted by PW 7 ASI Kishan Dass, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out solely on this score. The Honble Supreme Court while expressing its displeasure over the practice of the complainant as Police Officer carrying the investigation in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2339, has observed as follows : "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” 21. Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar alias Sonu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000 (2) Sim. Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar alias Sonu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000 (2) Sim. L.C. 363, has 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 the investigation has been conducted by the Police Officer at whose complaint, the FIR was lodged without showing the prejudice caused to the accused, the trial cannot be held vitiated. In the present case, ASI Kishan Dass (PW-7) was an authorized officer empowered to investigate the case under the NDPS Act. He has seized the contraband from the personal search of the accused in case of chance recovery when he along with other police officials was oh routine patrol duty. It will be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether after lodging the formal First Information Report, it was possible for the police officer to hand over further investigation to another competent police officer. No material has been placed on record by the accused to prove prejudice to him on this ground as well. 22. No other point has been urged before us. 23. In the result, for the above said reasons and discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.