Judgment Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 1525-SB of 2003 (Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab), as both the Criminal Appeals arise out of a common judgement dated 21.7.2003 in Sessions Case No. 195 dated 16.12.2003 (RBT No. 53 dated 4.7.2003), passed by Shri J.S. Bhatia, learned Judge of Special Court, Ludhiana, holding the accused-appellants guilty of offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act) and sentencing them to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year, each. 2. Succinctly narrated the facts of prosecution case are that on 16.9.2000 Inspector Paramjit Singh, I.O., accompanied by police personnel ASI Shivcharan Singh and other police officials was no duty at Railway Crossing Gate, Dhandari Kalan, holding special nakabandi (blockade). At that time, he received a secret information to the effect that Balwinder Singh @ Binder, Jagir Singh @ Jagira, Prem Singh @ Premi and Jaswant Singh were bringing poppy husk to Ludhiana in Truck No. HR-07G-0235 from towards village Gobindgarh to dry port Dhandari Kalan and on checking a huge quantity of poppy husk contained in bags could be recovered. On the basis of this secret information, Inspector Paramjit Singh, I.O., sent ruqa PJ to Police Station for registration of FIR and thus FIR, Ex.P7/1, was recorded by SI Harbans Singh. Thereafter, Inspector Parmajit Singh, I.O., along with other police officials held blockade for checking vehicles at T. Point of Gobindgarh Railway Crossing on kacha road after sending a telephonic message to DSP Gurjit Singh. DSP arrived at the spot. PW Gurmit Singh was also associated with police party. At about 1.15 PM, above said truck having crossed the railway crossing, turned towards Gobindgarh on a kacha passage. On directions of DSP Gurjit, Inspector Paramjit Singh signalled the truck to stop. Then, two persons, who were sitting on tool box, jumped down and ran away. Accused Jagir Singh and Balwinder Singh were, however, apprehended on the spot. Accused Jagir Singh was driving the truck wheras accused Balawinder Singh was sitting along with him. DSP Gurjit Singh disclosed his identity to both the accused and told them that they suspect some contraband being carried in the tuck. Accused Jagir Singh and Balwinder Singh were, however, apprehended on the spot. Accused Jagir Singh was driving the truck wheras accused Balawinder Singh was sitting along with him. DSP Gurjit Singh disclosed his identity to both the accused and told them that they suspect some contraband being carried in the tuck. Hence, a search was required to be conducted and if they so desire, then some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate could be called on the spot. Both the accused reposed faith in him. Accordingly, their consent statements were recorded separately. They are Ex.PA and Ex.PB with thumb impressions of both the accused and are attested by Inspector Pramjit Singh and PW Gurmit Singh. As per directions of DSP Gurjit Singh, Inspector Paramjit Singh, IO, conducted search of the tuck with the help of other police officials and recovered 30 bags of poppy husk concealed underneath the bags of maize and millet. On weighment each gunny bag came to 40 Kgs. All the bags were marked to A to Z and AB, AC and AE. From each gunny bag, two samples of 250 grams each were sorted out and converted into separate parcels with specific markings. The residue of each gunny bag on being weighed came to 39 kgs 500 grams. All the 60 samples parcels and 30 bags containing the residue of contraband were sealed by Inspector Paramjit Singh, IO, with his seal bearing impression `PS and further by DSP Gurjit Singh with the seal bearing impression `GS. Sample seal chits were separately prepared and the seal of Inspector Paramjit Singh after use was handed over to ASI Shivcharan Singh. The entire case property including the afore said truck was taken into possession by Inspector Paramjit Singh, I.O., vide recovery memo Ex.PC attested by DSP Gurjit Singh, ASI Shivcharan Singh and PW Gurmit Singh. On personal search of accused Jagir Singh, currency notes of Rs. 310/- in total were recorded and were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PD attested by PWs. Similarly, on personal search of accused Balwinder Singh, currency notes of Rs. 530/- were recovered and taken into possession by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PE attested by PWs. On further search of the truck, from its dash board a bag containing R.C. Permit, driving licence and bill etc. Similarly, on personal search of accused Balwinder Singh, currency notes of Rs. 530/- were recovered and taken into possession by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PE attested by PWs. On further search of the truck, from its dash board a bag containing R.C. Permit, driving licence and bill etc. were recovered and also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo Ex.PF attested by PWs. 45 bags of maize and 80 bags of millet which were also found loaded in the truck were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo Ex.PG attested by PWs. The Investigating Officer prepared a rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PK with correct marginal notes. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. Having returned to the Police Station, the Investigating Officer produced the accused and the case property before SI Harbans Singh, officiating SHO, who conducted the physical verification of the articles and further sealed them with his seal bearing `HS. He also put his seal on sample seal chit Ex.P-1. The Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC Kuldip Singh. On the next day on directions of Investigating Officer, ASI Shivcharan Singh produced the case property in Court with a request Ex.PH. After receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PM, and on completion of formal investigation, a challan was put up against the accused in competent Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel submitted that the truck in question was carrying 30 bags of poppy husk, 80 bags of bajra (millet) and 45 bags of baji (maize) and the accused-appellants were not aware that along with millet and maize (being 125 bags), 30 bags of poppy husk were also loaded in the truck and, therefore, this is not a case of conscious possession. Learned counsel further submitted that CFSL form was not filled up at the time of recovery and there was a gap of 11 days in dispatch of sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. This is also a case of the defence that the Investigating Officer has lodged the FIR. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of this Court reported in 2005(4) Law Herald (P&H) 65 (Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab). 4. This is also a case of the defence that the Investigating Officer has lodged the FIR. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of this Court reported in 2005(4) Law Herald (P&H) 65 (Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab). 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the seals of the samples sent to the FSL were found to be intact and that under Section 54 of the Act, there is a presumption against the appellants. 5. On due consideration of rival submissions, it appears that the material witnesses, who were associated with entire search and seizure, are ASI Shivcharan Singh (PW-1), Inspector Paramjit Singh, I.O. (PW-7) and DSP Gurjit Singh (PW-5). PW-1 has given a detailed description of the entire proceedings of search and seizure. His testimony discloses that PW-7 received information about transportation of contraband item by the accused-appellants in the truck in question, therefore, he sent a ruqa for registration of FIR. A police party present on the spot laid a trap/nakabandi and a public witness Gurmit Singh was called. DSP Gurjit Singh (PW-5) also reached the spot. His evidence as to how the accused-appellants were apprehended on the spot are that at about 1.15 PM, the truck in question came from the side of Gobindgarh and Inspector Paramjit Singh (PW-7) gave a signal to driver to stop it; that two young men sitting on tool box of the truck jumped down and managed to escape whereas, appellants-accused, who were sitting in drivers cabin of the truck, were taken in custody. The testimony of PW-1 as regards the compliance of relevant provisions of the Act dealing with conduction of the search and seizure is (a) that the truck was found to be loaded with maize and millet (bajra) and on direction of the DSP (PW-5), the Investigating Officer (PW-7) told the accused that he suspected contents of poppy husk in gunny bags loaded in the truck which are to be searched; (b) that the DSP (PW-5) disclosed his identity to the accused and gave a complete offer that if they wanted, they could be searched before some other Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; and (c) that the accused gave two separate statements vide Exs.PA and PB reposing faith in the DSP (PW-5), which were attested by PW-1, DSP (PW-5), public witness Gurmit Singh and Investigating Officer (PW-7). PW-1 further stated that beneath millet and maize bags, 30 bags of poppy husk were found and out of that, 2 samples of 250 grams each, were separated and the residue content of each bag was weighed to be 39.500 kgs. According to him, all the items were sealed and the Investigating Officer (PW-7) and the DSP (PW-5) affixed their seals thereon. He has testified that the Investigating Officer (PW-7) handed-over his seal to him whereas, the DSP (PW-5) retained his own. This part of evidence of PW-1 is fully corroborated by the testimonial of PW-5 and the I.O. (PW-7). As regards personal search of the accused, according to this witness, memos prepared in this regard being Exts. PD and PE were signed by him, thumb marked by the accused-appellants and attested by the I.O. (PW-7) and also public witness Gurmit Singh. Ex.PF is the RC Book of the truck with some other connected papers. According to PW-1 this exhibit was also attested and thumb marked in the same manner. So is the case with Ex.PG whereby, gunny bags of maize and millet were taken into possession, however, this exhibit does not appear to have been attested by the DSP (PW-5). It seems that hereinafter, the DSP (PW-5) was not associated with further proceedings being carried out in respect of the contraband item. Now coming to the procedures followed and proceedings completed at the Police Station, PW-1 has stated that the I.O. (PW-7) produced the accused and case properties before SI Harbans Singh (PW- 2), who put his seal on the parcels and chits after physical verification. This witness (PW-1) has clarified in his re-examination that he deposited the seal with the Moharrir Head Constable of the Police Station on the same day. However, in the re-examination of the I.O. (PW-7) dated 24.4.2003 which was done after a long gap, it appears the he had not recollected for definite as to when his seal was returned to him. However, in the re-examination of the I.O. (PW-7) dated 24.4.2003 which was done after a long gap, it appears the he had not recollected for definite as to when his seal was returned to him. In the evidence of PW-1, there is no mention as to whether officiating SHO Harbans Singh (PW-2) returned the case properties and parcels to the Investigating Officer (PW-7) for depositing in malkhana and as to who deposited these articles with MHC, of the Police Station Kuldip Singh (PW-3) but it appears from the examination-in-chief of the I.O. (PW-7) which is not challenged in his cross-examination that he deposited the case properties with the HMC of the Police Station. MHC Kuldip Singh (PW-3) has also corroborated it. According to PW-1, he took back the parcels and chits from MHC Kuldip Singh on the next day, i.e., 17.9.2000 with seals intact and produced them before the Illaqa Magistrate vide application, Ex.PH, on which the Magistrate passed an order (Ex.PH/1). It appears from the evidence of MHC Kuldip Singh (PW-3) that the I.O. (PW-7) took back the said items for production before the Illaqa Magistrate and there is no mention about PW-1 but this cannot be treated as a major contradiction because PW-1 being a subordinate of PW-7 could have acted as aforesaid under his directions. It is also noticed that PW-1 re-deposited the chits and parcels with the MHC (PW-3) with seals intact. Thus, it appears that till this stage, there is a reiteration in the evidence of this witness (PW-1) that the seals of the samples were absolutely intact and they were also physically verified by the Illaqa Magistrate. This witness was re-examined on 31.1.2003 wherein also, he reiterated that all the seals were intact. There are minor variances in his cross-examination but that appears to be natural as he was put to witness box again for re-examination after a long gap. These variances having been carefully considered do not appear to affect the credibility of the prosecution case in any manner. As regards the I.O. (PW-7), he also been examined twice; firstly on 18.9.2002 and then on 24.2.2003, whereas recovery was done way back on 16.9.2000. He seems to be a little fumbling as to who recorded the statement of PW-1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but that appears to be natural too, because this part of his statement was given in cross- examination on 24.3.2003. He seems to be a little fumbling as to who recorded the statement of PW-1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but that appears to be natural too, because this part of his statement was given in cross- examination on 24.3.2003. Moreover, PW-1 has made categorical statement that his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on the spot itself. Thus, it is immaterial as to who recorded it, whether the I.O. (PW-7) or MHC assisting the I.O. in his writing work by taking his dictation on the spot. PW-7 has supported the evidence of PW-1 in material particulars, albeit he has also stated that he did not send a special report to senior police officers, except to the DSP (PW-5) but that does not undermine the credibility of prosecution case as the DSP being a senior Police Officer was present on the spot and in his presence, the entire proceeding of search and seizure were conducted. He has also clarified that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused. He has corroborated PW-1 that the contraband articles were weighed 90 times. DSP Gurjit Singh (PW-5) has supported the I.O. (PW-7) that he received a telephonic message about secret information. He has corroborated PW-1 and PW-7 that the arrived at the spot before the search and seizure. He has further supported them as regards giving an offer to the accused for search before some other Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He has made it clear, that he attested Ex.PC, a memo whereby the case property was taken possession of. He has stated that public witness Gurmit Singh, PW-1 and PW-7 also attested the exhibit. He has reiterated in his cross-examination that the I.O. (PW-7) himself contacted him over telephone. He has supported the prosecution case also with regard to quantity of the contraband, the procedures followed, and manner of registration of an FIR. This witness has stated that he was present on the spot till the entire articles were stitched and sealed. Subhash Gupta (PW-6) has stated that the truck in question was transferred in the name of accused Jagir Singh son of Buta Singh, who was found to be driving the vehicle at the time of seizure. Constable Baldev Singh (PW-4) has also reiterated that he deposited the samples and seals on 27.9.2000 with the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, and the seals were intact. Constable Baldev Singh (PW-4) has also reiterated that he deposited the samples and seals on 27.9.2000 with the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, and the seals were intact. Both the accused-appellants in their separate statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have only stated that they were falsely implicated at the instance of the police and they were not known to each other. 6. Thus, from, the aforesaid analysis of the evidence, it appears that all the prosecution witnesses are consistent in supporting the prosecution case and there is no material irregularity or infirmity, procedural or otherwise, causing any prejudice to rights of the appellants. It has been reiterated by all the prosecution witnesses that the seals of samples were seen as intact and the seal of the Investigating Officer was not in his possession. Besides, there was no such suggestion given to any of the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination that by a delay of 11 days in dispatch of samples, a prejudice was caused to the appellants. That apart, the samples, with chits and the seals were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate for physical verification on the very next day, i.e., 17.9.2000, who on such verification passed an order. Further in the FSL report (Ex.PM), the seals on the samples were again found to be intact. A heavy reliance has been placed on a judgment reported in 2005(4) Law Herald (P&H) 65 (Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab), 2005(4) RCR(Crl.) 681 (P&H) wherein, this Court has considered two judgments of this High Court on the question of delay in dispatch of samples to Chemical Examiner, namely, (i) 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 146 (Ramesh v. State of Haryana(P&H) and (ii) 1977(1) RCR(Crl.) 414 (Narain v. State of Haryana). In the case of Ramesh (supra), it was noticed that a witness from the Railways had turned hostile; that no public witness was examined; that official witnesses were not worth believing; that the weight of the samples was found to be short in the FSL report as the quantity separated for the samples was 100 grams each whereas it was found to be 83 grams; and that certain relevant circumstances were not put to the accused in this Court examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In this background, delay of 17 days in dispatch of samples to the Chemical Examiner was found to be fatal for the prosecution case and thus the acquittal was recorded not only on the ground of delay in dispatch of the sample but also on various other grounds. In the case of Narain (supra), there was a non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act; that the accused was carrying a bag in his shoulders containing 1 kg. of opium; and that the accused was not informed of his valuable right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In this case also, the accused was acquitted also for various other serious infirmities. Thus, the entire proceedings of search and seizure adopted in the case in hand do not show a serious prejudice being caused to valuable rights of the accused-appellants on account of delay in dispatch of the samples. Further, there is very important incriminating circumstance against the appellants inasmuch as the bills and the tax receipts being carried by them in respect of articles loaded on the truck covered the quantities of maize and millet only and there was absolutely no mention about 30 gunny bags which contained poppy husk. Thus, the appellants cannot gainsay that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Further, from the evidence of Subhash Gupta (PW-6), it appears that the truck in question had been transferred by the Transport Officer in the name of accursed Jagir Singh, who, according to evidence of the DSP (PW- 5), was found to be driving the vehicle at the time of interception by the police officials. Furthermore, there is no violation of any mandatory provisions of the Act as the search in question did not pertain to the search of person in terms of Section 50 of the Act. Furthermore, there is no violation of any mandatory provisions of the Act as the search in question did not pertain to the search of person in terms of Section 50 of the Act. Moreover, the search and writing works were conducted and completed in presence of the DSP (PW-5). For the same reasons, failure to fill up CFSL form on the spot does not affect the prosecution case. Further from the entire proceedings recorded during the search and seizure and thereafter as discussed here-in-above, the position of the I.O. being the informant/complainant also does not create any doubt about the credibility of the prosecution case and besides, when the DSP (PW-5) has stated in his cross-examination that during the seizure proceedings, a Constable had returned with the FIR to the spot in his presence at 3 P.M. That apart, it may not be out of place to note that in the case of Gurcharan Singh (Supra), the acquittal has been recorded on numerous grounds, including the ground of violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. 7. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and the same is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, both the Criminal Appeals (being Crl. Appeal Nos. of 1470-SB of 2003 and 1525-SB of 2003) stand dismissed.