Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Mandsaur in Special Case No. 107/97, whereby he has been convicted under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment often years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount rigorous imprisonment of two years. ( 2. ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that on 9-8-97 M. K. Pipal, Sub inspector of Narcotic Department received an information from the informant that the accused-appellant is having possession of opium in his house. Thereafter on 10-8-97 P. W. 6 Inspector Rajendra Kumar along with another Inspector of the Department, Mahavir in the leadership of P. W. 7 Superintendent Mr. P. K. Sinha raided the house of the appellant and nearby staircase of his house in two gunny bags of urea fertilizer, opium was found. On weighing, in one bag 3. 850 kgs. and in another bag 3. 350 kgs. of opium was found. Seizure memo Ex. P-2 in that regard was prepared at the spot and the confessional statement of the accused- appellant Ex. P-16 was recorded. Two samples were taken out from the bulk of the contraband article (opium) and the same were sent to the chemical examiner, who confirmed the samples to be of opium. ( 3. ) AFTER completing investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court which on going through the charge-sheet, framed a charge punishable under Section 8/18 of the Act against the present appellant. Needless to emphasis, the accused-appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. ( 4. ) IN order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and placed Exs. P-l to P-20, the documents on record. The defence of accused-appellant is of false implication and in his defence he has examined one Govind Singh as D. W. 1. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence on record came to hold that the accused-appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted and sentenced him which I have mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal. ( 6. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence on record came to hold that the accused-appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted and sentenced him which I have mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal. ( 6. ) IN this appeal, Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that seizure witnesses, namely, bhanwarlal (P. W. 1), Ghanshyam (P. W. 2) and Mohan Singh (P. W. 5) are hostile witnesses and have not supported the case of prosecution and, therefore, seizure of contraband article is not at all proved. He has further contended that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act an if that is the position, no conviction could be accorded. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Mohinder Kumar Vs. State, Panaji, Goa, AIR 1995 SC1157, Govindramlal Vs. State of MP. , 2000 (1) MPLJ 250 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (11) MPWN Note 54. Apart from these three decisions, learned Counsel has also placed reliance on an unreported decision of Indore Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1223/98 (Bhanwarlal Vs. Union of India), decided on 17-1-2002. ( 7. ) PER contra, it has been contended by Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the raiding party was being headed by Superintendent of Narcotics Department Mr. P. K. Sinha (P. W. 7) and upon his instructions search of the house of the accused-appellant was made by inspector Rajendra Kumar (P. W. 6) and if that is the position, there was no necessity for obtaining warrant of search from the superior officer as envisaged under Section 41 of the Act. To bolster his contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on following decisions :- (i) State of Haryana Vs. Jarnail Singh and others, 2004 SCC (Cri.)1571. (ii) M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue intelligence, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 2024. (iii) T. Thomson Vs. State of Kerala and another, 2004 SCC (Cri.)447. To bolster his contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on following decisions :- (i) State of Haryana Vs. Jarnail Singh and others, 2004 SCC (Cri.)1571. (ii) M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue intelligence, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 2024. (iii) T. Thomson Vs. State of Kerala and another, 2004 SCC (Cri.)447. Apart from this submission it has also been putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that under Section 67 of the Act, confessional statement which is recorded by the officers of Narcotics Department is admissible in evidence because the officers of the Narcotics Department are not Police Officers and, therefore, confessional statement is admissible in evidence. To bolster his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) M. Prabhulal (supra ). (ii) Port Adithan Vs. Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, madras, 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1051. (iii) A. K Mehaboob Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control bureau, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1035. ( 8. ) IN reply to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, Shri Yogesh Purohit, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jahida bi Vs. Central Narcotics Bureau, 2001 (2) M. P. H. T. 56 = 2001 (1) MPLJ 391 , and has contended that the conviction can be passed on the confessional statement of the accused, if it receives some general corroboration from other independent sources. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion, that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 10. ) SO far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution as they have been declared hostile and, therefore, seizure of opium from the house of the appellant is not proved, sans substance. It is well settled in law that the seizure of the contraband article can be proved from the statement of Investigating Officer. In this regard, evidence of Rajendra Kumar (P. W. 6) is quite clear. Thus, merely because the independent witnesses have been declared hostile, it cannot be said that the seizure is not proved. According to me, seizure of contraband article is proved from the unimpeachable testimony of Investigating Officer Rajendra Kumar (P. W. 6 ). In regard to seizure, the statement of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy. Thus, merely because the independent witnesses have been declared hostile, it cannot be said that the seizure is not proved. According to me, seizure of contraband article is proved from the unimpeachable testimony of Investigating Officer Rajendra Kumar (P. W. 6 ). In regard to seizure, the statement of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy. According to me, the Special Court did not commit any error in placing reliance on the testimony of this witness. Hence seizure of contraband article is proved. ( 11. ) ON the basis of the report of chemical examiner contraband article was found to be opium. The report of chemical examiner has not been challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. ( 12. ) NOW the moot question in regard to the compliance of Section 42 of the Act is to be considered. In his usual vehemence, learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to Para 20 of the statement of Rajendra kumar (P. W. 6) and contended that before making search of the house of the appellant he was not having any search warrant and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act and for this reason conviction cannot be accorded. True it has come in the evidence of rajendra Kumar (P. W. 6) that before making search of the house of the appellant, he was not having any search warrant. However, this fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that the officers of Narcotics Department were being headed by Superintendent of their Department P. K. Sinha (P. W. 7) and if that is the position, according to me, under sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act, there was no necessity of obtaining search warrant. In this regard decisions in Jarnail Singh (supra), M. Prabhulal (supra) and T. Thomson (supra)are quite relevant. Thus, even if prior search warrant was not obtained, it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act. ( 13. ) APART from this, it would be germane to mention that there is confessional statement of accused-appellant which is Ex. P-6. On going through the said statement it is luminously clear that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act. According to me, the decisions on the point Fan Adithan (supra) and A. K. Mehaboob (supra) are relevant in this regard. P-6. On going through the said statement it is luminously clear that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act. According to me, the decisions on the point Fan Adithan (supra) and A. K. Mehaboob (supra) are relevant in this regard. Admittedly the confession by the accused- appellant is made before the officers of Narcotics Department and they are not Police Officers and, therefore, the confessional statement of accused-appellant is admissible in evidence. Learned Counsel for the appellant failed to point out anything in order to show that the confessional statement is not worth acceptable. Looking to the entire gamut of the case I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. ( 14. ) THE Trial Court has directed that in case fine amount of rupees one lac is not deposited by the appellant, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years. Looking to the facts and circumstances it is hereby directed that if the appellant fails to deposit fine amount of rupees one lac, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month apart from the main sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment. ( 15. ) WITH this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Criminal Appeal dismissed.