ONKARESHWAR BHATT, J. Appellant, Alakh Ram, has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 20 of narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment which has been awarded by the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Special Case No. 1 of 1993 on 9-2-1994. 2. Sri L. K. Pathak, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Sri G. S. Bisaria, learned A. G. A. , appearing for the State have been heard. 3. According to the prosecution case P. W. 2 Ravindra Kumar Misra, Station Officer of Police Station Katera district Jhansi, alongwith six constables on 9-6-1992 was returning from patrol duty from village Padra. In village Kodaran he received information that the appellant has cultivated Ganja in his Aruee field. He collected P. W. 1 Swami Prasad and Kailash Narain and went the Aruee field of the appellant. The appellant was present at his field. On search 17 plants of Ganja weighing about 1. 5 kg. were found in the Aruee field of the appellant. The appellant could not show any licence for its cultivation. After informing the appellant the reasons he arrested him at 9 a. m. A recovery memo was prepared and Ganja plants were sealed. On analysis the plants were found hemp (cannabis sativa linn ). 4. The defence of the appellant is that Janki, Kishori, Ramesh, Prakash, Jhuley and Hari Kisan wanted to illegally grab his land in village Katera. He had instituted a case before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. He had also moved an application for stay on which order for maintaining status quo was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He has further stated that he himself went to the police station alongwith stay order where he was arrested by the Station Officer in connivance with Janki and others. The appellant has denied that any Daroga or Constable came to the field. 5. The fact that 17 Ganja plants were found on search of Aruee field is stated by P. W. 2 Ravindra Kumar Misra. He has stated that the appellant was present at that time in his field. The statement of the searching officer, Ravindra Kumar Misra is corroborated from the statement of independent witness, Swami Prasad PW-1 in all material particulars. The fact that 17 Ganja plants were found on search of Aruee field is stated by P. W. 2 Ravindra Kumar Misra. He has stated that the appellant was present at that time in his field. The statement of the searching officer, Ravindra Kumar Misra is corroborated from the statement of independent witness, Swami Prasad PW-1 in all material particulars. Swami Prasad was stated that in five or six plants there were fruits. Section 2 (iii) (b) of the Act defines "cannabis (hemp)" as follows : "ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated. " Sub-section (iv) defines cannabis plant to mean any plant of the genus cannabis. PW-1 Swami Prasad has stated that he had occasion to see ganja plants. That apart the report of the Chemical Examination conclusively proves that the plants were hemp (cannabis sativa linn ). Several suggestions have been given to Swami Prasad PW-1 that the appellant alongwith his three brothers and father has 60 or 70 bighas of land and some of which were joint and some of which are exclusive to them. However, the appellant himself has not stated that the field from where ganja plants have been recovered does not exclusively belong to him. He has not given any number of the field where Aruee crop was sown and has also not filed any documentary evidence in respect of the same. Question No. 1 which has been put to the appellant mentions that he had sown ganja in his Aruee field to which the answer is that it is wrong. He has not stated that Aruee field did not belong to him. The statement of the prosecution witnesses particularly of Swami Prasad PW-1 whose field is also near the field of the appellant proves that Aruee field from where the ganja plants have been found belonged to him alone. 6. It has been contended that the searching officer did not take down in writing the information which he received prior to making the search and seizure and thereby there is non-compliance of Section 42 (1) of the Act. 6. It has been contended that the searching officer did not take down in writing the information which he received prior to making the search and seizure and thereby there is non-compliance of Section 42 (1) of the Act. In the case of state of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 ACC page 351 : 1995 (1) JIC 382 (SC) Honble Supreme Court has held that Sections 41 and 42 contain procedural instructions. It has further held that mere non-compliance or failure to strictly comply by itself will not vitiate the prosecution. It has come in evidence that the searching officer was returning from patrol duty when information was received by him. In the case of sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, 2001 (2) JIC 632 (SC) the facts were similar where information was received by the searching officer who was on patrol duty. It has been held that had the searching officer not acted immediately the appellant would have escaped. It was held that no inference could be drawn that there has been any violation of Section 42 of the Act. In the case of suresh Daharey v. State of U. P. , 2001 (2) JIC 729 (All) also the information was received when the Sub-Inspector was on patrol duty. It was held that in the circumstances of the case the requirement of Section 42 (1) of the Act was not essential. The Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh (supra) has held that it has to be shown that such non-compliance has caused prejudice and resulted in failure of justice. The appellant has not been able to show how non-compliance of Section 42 (1) of the Act, which is procedural instruction, has caused him prejudice or has resulted in failure of justice. 7. It has come in the evidence that after search and seizure Ganja plants were sealed and deposited at the police station. PW-3 Constable Jagat Singh, who prepared the chick and registered the case, has stated that sealed article remained in- tact so long as it was at the police station. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. Ka-5, shows that he received the articles in sealed condition alongwith sample of seal of Ravindra Kumar Misra. PW-2 Ravindra Kumar Misra is the officer who had conducted search and seizure. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. Ka-5, shows that he received the articles in sealed condition alongwith sample of seal of Ravindra Kumar Misra. PW-2 Ravindra Kumar Misra is the officer who had conducted search and seizure. There is no force in the submission of the appellants Counsel that it cannot be said that the bundle was not hemp. It was also contended that in charge weight of Ganja is mentioned as 1. 5 kg. whereas it was Ganja plant which was recovered from possession of the appellant. If the charge is read as a whole there is no room for doubt that 17 plants of ganja weighing 1. 5 kg. is mentioned. The mention of ganja after 1. 5 kg. appears to be either typing error or due to inadvertence. Besides that how it has caused prejudice to the appellant has not been canvassed. 8. It has also been contended that the arresting officer has not complied with Section 57 of the Act which requires that whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure inform immediately to the officer superior. PW-2 Ravindra Kumar Misra has stated that after arrest of the appellant when he reached the police station he immediately informed his superior officers about the arrest through R. T. Set. No challenge has been made to this statement of the witness. The Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh (supra) has held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act are by itself not mandatory. If there is non-compliance or if there are lapses like delay etc. then same has to be examined to see whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and such failure will have bearing on the appreciation of the evidence regarding arrest or seizure as well as on merits of the case. As mentioned above, the arrest and seizure of the appellant was informed to the superior officers by P. W. 2 Ravindra Kumar Misra by R. T. Set. The appellant has not been able to show what prejudice has been caused to him. 9. One unique aspect has come out in this case. As mentioned above, the arrest and seizure of the appellant was informed to the superior officers by P. W. 2 Ravindra Kumar Misra by R. T. Set. The appellant has not been able to show what prejudice has been caused to him. 9. One unique aspect has come out in this case. PW-2 Ravindra Kumar Misra has stated that prior to search he informed the appellant if he wanted to get his field searched before a Gazetted Officer purporting to act in accordance with Section 50 of the Act. This was his over doing as Section 50 of the Act is applicable only in such cases where search of the person is carried out. 10. From the evidence on record it is proved that the appellant has committed an offence under Chapter IV in respect of cannabis plant growing on his land which he has cultivated and possession of which he failed to account for satisfactorily. 11. In the result, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender before the trial Court immediately and serve out the sentence awarded to him. After his surrender his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .