JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Anil Kumar son of Suraj Pal resident of Kacha Katra District Sehjanpur (Uttar Pradesh) stands convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide impugned judgment dated 10.1.95 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years. 2. The charge against the appellant is that he was allegedly carrying a bag on this shoulder contained 4 kgs of opium on 25.4.1992 near bus stand Panipat. SI Anoop Singh PW4 the then Incharge Police Post, Bus Stand, Panipat alongwith other police officials had apprehended the appellant on suspicion. For the purpose of effecting recovery PW1 Bal Kishan Ex-Sarpanch resident of Village Baroli, was also joined in the police party. A notice Ex. PA in order to comply with the provisions of section 50 of the Act was also served upon the appellant who expressed his desire to be searched by SI Anoop Singh himself. Thereafter in the presence of PW1 Bal Kishan and PW2 Dhan Raj the bag Ex.P1 of the appellant was searched and on search it was found to contain pippi Ex.P2 containing opium weighing 4 kgs. One sample of 100 grams was separated. The remainder Ex. P3 was put in the pippi Ex.P2. Sample packet and the pippi Ex.P 2 containing remainder opium Ex.P3 were separately sealed with the seals ASand were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. After completing the necessary legal formalities ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the Police Station City Panipat on the basis of which FIR Ex.PD/1 was recorded. Statement of witnesses were also prepared. The case property was then deposited with the MHC of the concerned police station. As per report Ex.PF of Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, it was found opium. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged under section 18 of the Act. 3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Bal Kishan PW1, HC Dhan Raj PW2, Inspector Jagparvesh PW3, SI Anoop Singh PW4, Constable Bhim Sain PW5, MHC Subhash Chander PW6, ASI Kali Ram PW7 and Inspector Bhale Ram PW8. 4. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged under section 18 of the Act. 3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Bal Kishan PW1, HC Dhan Raj PW2, Inspector Jagparvesh PW3, SI Anoop Singh PW4, Constable Bhim Sain PW5, MHC Subhash Chander PW6, ASI Kali Ram PW7 and Inspector Bhale Ram PW8. 4. The stand taken by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication in this case. However, no defence evidence has been produced. 5. After appreciating, the entire evidence, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. Ajit Attri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjiv Dahiya, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record of the case. 7. The learned counsel, for acquittal of the appellant, has raised the following main contentions :- (i) Non-compliance of section 50 of the Act; (ii) Discrepancies in the statement of witnesses. 8. The learned State counsel, however, has refuted the submissions advanced by Mr. Attri and asserts that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witness in this case who have no animosity against the present appellant for which they could go to the extent of falsely implicating him in a case in which a huge recovery of contraband (4 Kgs opium) has been recovered. It is then contended that if certain minor discrepancies have occurred in the statements of official witnesses, that cannot be a ground to uproot the prosecution case. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to the appellant. 10. It is well settled by now that section 50 of the Act applies to the personal search only and cannot be extended to search of vehicle or container or a bag or premises. In this regard I am supported by a latest judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in Rajendra and Anr. 10. It is well settled by now that section 50 of the Act applies to the personal search only and cannot be extended to search of vehicle or container or a bag or premises. In this regard I am supported by a latest judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in Rajendra and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 349 (SC) in which their Lordships relying upon Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharasthra, JT 1999(8) SC 293, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999(6) SCC 172 and Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(3) SCC 28, held that language of section 50 of the Act is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person. In the instant case the opium is recovered from a bag being carried on the shoulder of the appellant. Following the aforesaid ratio, the contention raised regarding non-compliance of section 50 of the Act is without any substance and is hereby repelled. 11. The other contention regarding discrepancies in the statements of witnesses has also no force in it. I have once again gone through the statements of all the main witnesses of recovery and find no material discrepancy which would go to the root of the case. Much importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. 12. No other point has been urged before me. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. His conviction under section 18 of the Act as recorded by the learned trial Court is, thus, upheld. 13. Consequently the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 14. Let intimation of this judgment be sent to the concerned quarters. Necessary steps be taken to take the present appellant to custody to serve out his remaining part of his substantive sentence. Appeal dismissed.