Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT/accused has filed this appeal under Section 374, Cr. PC against the judgment and order dated 24-3-98, in Special Criminal Case No. 20/97, passed by Shri J. P. Maheshwari, learned Special Judge NDPS Act, Mandsaur of his conviction and sentence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ndps Act) for 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for 2 years. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case is that on 9-3-97 at about 8. 50 PM in the night at Police Station, Suwasra ASI R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) received secret information that the accused is transporting opium and he can be apprehended near MPEB grid and the information of the approver was recorded in panchnama (Ex. P-l) and the SDOP, Sitamau was informed about the secret message. The ASI R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) along with Constables Ramsingh (P. W. 6), Bharat Singh (P. W. 2) and Premsingh reached the spot and the accused was seen coming from Runija Road. He was informed about the secret message against him. R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) apprised him about his right of his search before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and the accused agreed for his search by R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10 ). That in the personal search of the accused nothing was recovered, but in a bag in his hand in a plastic packet opium was found and on weighment it was 5 Kgs. That two samples of 30 Gms each were extracted from it and sample packets along with the seized item were packed and sealed and the panchnama (Ex. P-2) was prepared. The signatures on the panchnama were taken of the panch witnesses Badrilal (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh (P. W. 2 ). That the accused was informed about the ground of his arrest and vide Ex. P-3 he was arrested and taken to the police station. ( 3. ) IN police station the accused was handed over to SHO Anil Singh thakur (P. W. 9), who has handed over the muddemal to the Head Constable nandkishor (P. W. 7 ). That the FIR (Ex. P-3 he was arrested and taken to the police station. ( 3. ) IN police station the accused was handed over to SHO Anil Singh thakur (P. W. 9), who has handed over the muddemal to the Head Constable nandkishor (P. W. 7 ). That the FIR (Ex. P-10) was drawn and the SHO Anil singh (P. W. 9) transmitted the information under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to the SDOP Sitamau through Constable Balwantsingh (P. W. 4 ). That the sample packet was sent by Anil Singh (P. W. 9) through Constable Pitamberdas (P. W. 3) on 12-3-97 to FSL Indore. That the FSL Indore vide his report (Ex. P-13) has opined that the contents were having 3. 92% morphine and it was opium. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by Anil Singh (P. W. 9)and the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was filed before the Special Court, Mandsaur on 1-5-97. ( 4. ) THE accused has abjured the guilt and he has denied the incriminating evidence under Section 313, Cr. PC. The defence of the accused is that he is innocent and the police has falsely implicated him. The accused has not examined any witness in his defence. ( 5. ) THE prosecution has examined panch witnesses Badrilal (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh (P. W. 2), Constables Pitamberdas (P. W. 3), Balwant Singh (P. W. 4), Yashwant Kumar (P. W. 5), Ramsingh (P. W. 6), Head Constable malkhana Nandkishor (P. W. 7), Constable Rameshwar Dayal Sharma (P. W. 8), SHO Anil Singh Thakur (P. W. 9) and ASI R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10 ). The learned Trial Court has held that the opium weighing 5 Kgs was found in possession of the accused and the statutory provisions of NDPS Act were followed and the accused was convicted and sentenced as above. ( 6. ) THE appellant has assailed the conviction on the ground that the learned Trial Court has erred in believing the uncorroborated statements of the police personnels and that the conviction is not sustainable in view of the violation of the statutory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the ndps Act. ( 7. ) R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) has stated that on 9-3-97 he was posted as ASI Police Station, Suwasra and in the night at about 8. ( 7. ) R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) has stated that on 9-3-97 he was posted as ASI Police Station, Suwasra and in the night at about 8. 50 PM the approver has informed him that the accused can be apprehended near MPEB grid as he is carrying the opium and that after recording the information and transmitting it to the superior authorities he proceeded along with the police Constables. That the accused was found near the alleged place and he was informed about the doubt that he is carrying the contraband. R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) has further stated that accused has agreed for his search by him when it was told to him that he has a right of his search before the Gazetted Officer or the magistrate. R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) has testified that in the search of the bag of the accused 5 Kgs. opium was recovered and the two samples of 30-30 Gms. were drawn from the seized item and the sample packets along with the seized item were packed and sealed. It is further stated by R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10)that the accused was informed about the ground of his arrest and after affecting the arrest vide Ex. P-3 he was taken to the police station where FIR (Ex. P-10)was registered and muddemal was handed over to Head Constable malkhana for keeping it in safe custody. ( 8. ) CONSTABLE Ramsingh (P. W. 6) has corroborated the statement of Seizing Officer and he has stated that he was with the raiding party and the accused has agreed his search by R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10 ). Thereafter, in search of the bag of the accused a packet was found. Ramsingh (P. W. 6) has stated that the seized item was weighed and it was 5 Kgs and, thereafter, the 2 samples were drawn and it was sealed and the accused was brought along with the muddemal to the police station. From the close scrutiny of the cross-examination of Ramsingh (P. W. 6) it is clear that there is not an iota of evidence to create a suspicion in the veracity of his statement. Ramsingh (P. W. 6) has not contradicted his earlier statement nor there is any omission or contradiction in his statement with the statement of the Seizing Officer. From the close scrutiny of the cross-examination of Ramsingh (P. W. 6) it is clear that there is not an iota of evidence to create a suspicion in the veracity of his statement. Ramsingh (P. W. 6) has not contradicted his earlier statement nor there is any omission or contradiction in his statement with the statement of the Seizing Officer. The accused has not made the allegation in the cross-examination of Ramsingh (P. W. 6) and R. S. chauhan (P. W. 10) that they have any reason to falsely implicate him nor there is anything on record to show that the police was in any way interested in cooking up a false case against the accused. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has alleged that the panch witnesses Badrilal (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh (P. W. 2) have turned hostile and, as such, the statements of the official witnesses should not be relied upon. Badrilal (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh (P. W. 2) have stated that their signatures were obtained by the police on seizure memo and panchnama (Exs. P-l to p-7 ). panch witnesses Badrilal (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh (P. W. 2) have not given sufficient explanation of signing the seizure memo and the panchnama. It is clear from the testimony of Badrilal (P. W. 1) and Bharat Singh (P. W. 2)that they are suppressing the truth and they have turned hostile. It is held in case of Tahir Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 3079 = 1996 SCC (Cr.) 515, that there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction can not be recorded on the uncorroborated evidence of the police officials. The Rule of prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of the evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence the conviction can be based on his evidence. The learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the statements of the seizing Officer R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) and Constable Ramsingh (P. W. 6)and, as such, the learned Trial Court was justified in recording the finding that the accused was found in possession of 5 Kgs opium. ( 10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the statements of the seizing Officer R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) and Constable Ramsingh (P. W. 6)and, as such, the learned Trial Court was justified in recording the finding that the accused was found in possession of 5 Kgs opium. ( 10. ) THE statement of Seizing Officer R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10) that he has sent the information received from the approver to the SDOP through constable Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 8) is not only corroborated by the statement of Rameshwar Dayal (P. W. 8), but also by Constable Balwant Singh (P. W. 4), who has stated that he was posted in the office of SDOP Sitamau and the information sent from the Police Station, Suwasra was given by him to the SDOP. Consequently, there is ample evidence to conclude that the provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act was duly and promptly complied with. ( 11. ) IT is held in case of Rajendra and others Vs. State of M. P. , 2004 (1) EFR 404 (SC) and by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldeo Singh, 1996 (2) EFT 491, that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are applicable only in case of personal search of the accused and it does not apply in case of recovery of the contraband from the bag, vehicle, house or the article. From the statements of R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10), Constable Yashwant Kumar (P. W. 5) and the Reader of SDOP balwant Singh (P. W. 4) it is proved that the information under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent on 9-3-97 to the SDOP, Sitamau. Consequently, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act were duly complied with and in the facts and circumstances of the case the question of compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not arise. ( 12. ) HEAD Constable Nandkishor (P. W. 7) has stated that he was posted as malkhana in charge at Police Station, Suwasra and the seized item along with the sample packets was given to him, which he was kept in the safe custody and Ex. P-8 is the entry of keeping the muddemal in the safe custody of the malkhana. ) HEAD Constable Nandkishor (P. W. 7) has stated that he was posted as malkhana in charge at Police Station, Suwasra and the seized item along with the sample packets was given to him, which he was kept in the safe custody and Ex. P-8 is the entry of keeping the muddemal in the safe custody of the malkhana. Head Constable Nandkishor (P. W. 7) has further stated that on 12-3-97 he has given one of the sample packets to Constable pitamberdas (P. W. 3) for taking it to FSL, Indore for analysis. Pitamberdas (P. W. 3) has also corroborated the statement of Nandkishor, Head Constable malkhana (P. W. 7 ). From the report of FSL, Indore (Ex. P-13) it is clear that the seal on the sample was compared with the specimen seal and it was found duly sealed and contents of the packet were opium. ( 13. ) CONSEQUENTLY, from the statements of Seizing Officer R. S. Chauhan (P. W. 10), Head Constable malkhana Nandkishor (P. W. 7) and constable Pitamberdas (P. W. 3) and from the report (Ex. P-13) it is established that the sample packet, after the seizure from the accused, was kept in proper custody and it was sent intact condition for the examination by the FSL Indore. The accused was informed by the Seizing Officer about the ground of his arrest and he was immediately taken to the superior authority where the FIR was registered. Consequently, it is proved that the provisions of Sections 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act were duly complied with and due precaution was taken to see that the sample packet was not tampered. In these circumstances the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the accused was found in possession of the opium and the required procedural safeguards were observed. The learned Trial Court has also rightly awarded the minimum prescribed sentence to the appellant/accused. ( 14. ) THE appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. Criminal Appeal dismissed.