JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - This appeal from the Jail has been preferred by the accused challenging his order of conviction u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') as per the impugned judgment dated 20.6.1997 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. 2. According to the case of the prosecution on 1.7.1996 while performing town patrolling duty in the Badbazar locality in Camuaipur town Sri Amaresh Kumar Panigrahi, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.6) alongwith Havildar Sri Ramchandra Dehury (P.W.4) and some police Constables noticed suspicious conduct of the Appellant and the letter's attempt to run away from that area after seeing the Police. Therefore, on the basis of suspicion the patrolling police party chased and captured the Appellant. That occurrence raised curasity of some passersby which includes Susanta Kumar Purohit (P.W.1), Rajesh Pandey (P.W.2), Binod Kumar Sahu (P.W.5) and Ors. and therefore all such persons remained present at the spot where the Appellant was caught by the patrolling party. P.W.6 expressing his intention to conduct a search of the Appellant ascertained from him whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a Magistrate and in that respect a written consent was given by the Appellant (Ext.4) permitting P.W.6 to conduct the search, P.W.6 conducted the search citing P.Ws. 1 and 5 as the witnesses to the seizure. In course of that search he could trace opium kept in a polythene packet on the inner side of the underwear of the Appellant. Therefore on the direction of P.W.6. P.W.4 went and requested a shopkeeper Mohanlal Agrawalla (P.W.3) to come to the spot with weighing scale arid weight. On the arrival of P.W.3 he made weighment of the seized article on the request of P.W.6 and found the polythene packet containing 225 gm. of opium. P.W.6 drew samples of 24 gm. each in two packets and seized all the three packets containing opium and sealed the same both with the paper seal containing signature of the witnesses and L.T.I. of the accused and also sealing by wax by affixing brass seal (M.O.III). P.W.6 gave that M.O.III in zima of P.W.5 who Executed zimanama Ext. 3. P.W.3 also made a statement Ext. 2 relating to the manner in which he made weighment and Ext. 1 is the seizure list. P.W.6 gave that M.O.III in zima of P.W.5 who Executed zimanama Ext. 3. P.W.3 also made a statement Ext. 2 relating to the manner in which he made weighment and Ext. 1 is the seizure list. The aforesaid occurrence took place in the evening hours at about 6 p.m. On 2.7 1996 P.W.6 took prompt step for forwarding the seized sample packets for chemical analysis with proper requisition from the Court. The Director, RFSL. Ainttsapalli, Samoalpur sent the report of the outcome of the chemical analysis (Ext. 8) giving opinion that brownish black soft mass sent in the sample packets was opium containing 2.28% of' morphine having the intoxicant capability. All such evidence was produced before the trial Court at the time of trial. In course of the trial P.W.1 who was a witness to the search and seizure and also P.W.2 who as also present at the time of search and. seizure but did not sign as a witness in the seizure list declined any knowledge about the search, seizure and recovery though P.W.1 admitted his signature on the seizure list Ext. 1. On the other hand, P.Ws. 3 to 6 consistently and corroboratingly supported the prosecution to prove the charge u/s 18 of the Act against the Appellant. On an analysis of such evidence the trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 18 of the Act for possessing 225 grams of opium without any valid licence and permit and therefore sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) i.e., the minimum sentence provided u/s 18 of the Act. 3. While challenging that order of conviction, in the appeal memo Appellant has stated that hrs actual age is 65 years and not 55 years as has been noted by the-trial Court and that the evidence on record are not creditworthy and therefore he is entitled to an order of acquittal. In furtherance of that plea both the learned Counsels on behalf of the Appellant argue that provision in Section 50 of the Act being mandatory in nature was not complied with, the evidence of P.Ws. In furtherance of that plea both the learned Counsels on behalf of the Appellant argue that provision in Section 50 of the Act being mandatory in nature was not complied with, the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 are, discrepant in nature relating to the manner in which the case was detected and the packet in which, opium was found and when the concerned documents at the stage of search and seizure was written in Oriya there is no evidence on record that the Appellant being a Hindi speaking man was explained about the contents of such documents in the language he understands. In addition to that, Mr. Arunendra Mohanty also argues that the whole prosecution case has to be commented as doubtful because according to the prosecution opium in a polythene packet was recovered from the possession of the Appellant but at the stage of chemical analysis the chemical examiner found the opium in a paper packet. 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while repelling the aforesaid argument supports the impugned judgment of conviction and prays to maintain the order of conviction. 5. So far as the evidence on record is concerned, this Court has gone through the same in the process of hearing argument from both the sides. Evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 strongly and corroboratively supports the prosecution case. As rightly opined by the trial Court non-supporting the prosecution by P.Ws. 1 and 2 has not shaken the credibility of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 relating to the factum of search, recovery and seizure of opium from the possession of the Appellant. Indeed, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the mode of assessment of such evidence and recording of that finding by the trial Court. One aspect in that respect which has been highlighted by the Appellant is regarding presence of P.W.3 as the person to make weighment and some contradiction in that respect. When P.W.3 states that on being requested he came to the spot from his shop at Badabazar Chhak (square) the evidence has been supported by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6. In his evidence P.W.4 states that on being directed by P.W.6 he went and called P.W.3. When P.W.3 states that on being requested he came to the spot from his shop at Badabazar Chhak (square) the evidence has been supported by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6. In his evidence P.W.4 states that on being directed by P.W.6 he went and called P.W.3. He has admitted in cross-examination that there is no shop near the spot where the accused was caught and detained, there are residential houses near the spot of the occurrence and in between the shop of P.W.3 and there were also other shops. P.W.5 in his cross-examination while admitting that there were many shops between the spot and the shop of P.W.3 but he volunteers that the shopkeepers of the vicinity refused to weigh the opium. On the other hand, P.W.6 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he sent P.W.4 to call P.W.3 to come to the spot with weighing materials for making weighment of the seized articles. In cross-examination he has stated that though some shops were there in between the spot and the shop of P.W.3 but some such shops were classed and therefore P.W.4 went and called P.W.3. From the aforesaid evidence a genuine doubt could have came against the prosecution if the defence would have denied about presence of P.W.3 at the spot or making weighment by him. No such plea was advanced by Appellant in course of the trial. In that respect adverse inference could have been drawn against prosecution if the defence would have proved that P.W. No. 3 is a stock witness for the local Police. Defence has even failed in that respect. Therefore, whether P.W.6 specifically called P.W.3 or incidentally brought him to the spot for the purpose of making weighment has become non-consequential when unchallengedly P.W.3 came to the spot and made weighment. Besides the above circumstances, no other discrepancy, if any, has been brought to the notice of the Court while challenging credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 6. Appellant also argues for benefit on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provision in Section 50 of the Act. Admittedly, the search and seizure was made in accordance with the provision in Section 43 of the Act. Therefore, Appellant's aforesaid argument is perhaps being not conscious of the permission granted by the Appellant which was incorporated in Ext. 4. In addition to that P.Ws. Admittedly, the search and seizure was made in accordance with the provision in Section 43 of the Act. Therefore, Appellant's aforesaid argument is perhaps being not conscious of the permission granted by the Appellant which was incorporated in Ext. 4. In addition to that P.Ws. 4 to 6 have consistently stated that Appellant consented for his search by P.W.6 and did not opt for being searched in presence of a Magistrate. That evidence clinches the issue to reject the argument advanced by the Appellant regarding non-compliance of the provision in Section 50 of the Act. 7. Ext. 4 and evidence of P.W.6 in paragraph 8 makes it clear that communication which was made with the Appellant in course of search and seizure was in the language "the Appellant understands". Apart from that, nothing has been brought on record that at the time of search, recovery and seizure Appellant was not properly communicated or that he was not explained in Hindi. Under such circumstance, the aforesaid argument of the Appellant is heard to be rejected. Another argument advanced by the Appellant is that he is 65 years old (by the date of appeal in 1997) and not 55 as assessed by the trial Court. Undoubtedly, the assessment of age by the Court was an approximation. At no stage of the proceeding the Appellant wanted to bring any material on record or giving a suggestion that he was 65 years old. Thus, that contention of the Appellant is found devoid of merit. 8. As noted above, Mr. Arunendra Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that chemical examiner found sample opium in a paper packet though the opium seized was in a polythene packet and therefore prosecution is to fail on that score alone. While advancing such an argument perhaps Mr. Monanty could not bear in memory evidence on record that after recovery of the opium in polythene packet sample was drawn in separate packets and such separate packets were sent for chemical examination. Therefore, the sample were not in polythene container. For the aforesaid reason, the argument is also rejected being devoid of merit. 9. No other contention is advanced in challenging the impugned judgment of conviction. This Court also finds no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence that being the minimum prescribed under the statute. Under such circumstance, appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed