Judgment 1. This appeal by Balbir Singh alias Beera accused (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is directed against the judgment of conviction dated September, 11, 1998 and order of sentence dated September 14, 1998, passed by the learned Special Court, Mansa, whereby he was ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac). In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, for an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Briefly stated, on May 19, 1997, at about 10.45 a.m., the police party headed by S. I. /S. H. O. Baljit Singh, Police Station, Sardulgarh, was present at Bus Stand of village Karandi. At that time, a secret information was received by the S. H. O. to the effect that the appellant was selling the poppy husk on sangha Dingh Pucca road, and if a raid was conducted, he could be apprehended with the incriminating material. Baljit Singh, who is also the Investigating Officer in this case, then proceeded to the above place. On the way, PW Harbans Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of village Sangha, also met him. He too, was joined in the police party. On reaching the aforesaid place, the appellant was found sitting on the bags containing poppy husk, who on seeing the police party, tried to run away, but was apprehended there and then at the spot. Wireless message was also sent to the D. S. P. Mr. Iqbal Singh, who too, reached at the spot and thereafter, the appellant was given the option of being searched either in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, whereupon, he opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, the appellant was searched personally and at the same time, the bags over which the appellant was found sitting were taken into possession. In all, number of bags was eight. Each bag contained 36 KG of poppy husk. 100 grams of poppy husk from each bag was taken out as sample. After that, the samples and the remaining case property were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD and thereafter, ruqa Ex. In all, number of bags was eight. Each bag contained 36 KG of poppy husk. 100 grams of poppy husk from each bag was taken out as sample. After that, the samples and the remaining case property were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PD and thereafter, ruqa Ex. PE was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, formal F. I. R. Ex. PA was recorded. The Investigating Officer after preparing the inventory also prepared the rough site plan Ex. PF of the place of occurrence. On return to the police station, the case property as well as the samples duly sealed at the spot with the seal of BS were deposited with the MHC. On receipt of the report Ex. PK of the Chemical Examiner and after completion of the formal investigation, the appellant was challaned for having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. He was duly charge sheeted under Section 15 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined S. I. Jagdish Kumar - PW1, Constable Baldev Singh PW-2, S. I. Baljit singh PW-3, the Investigating Officer of this case and A. S. I. Sukhwinder Singh. PW-4 Harbans Singh PW was, however, given up by the prosecution, as having been won over by the appellant. The prosecution also tendered into evidence documents Exs. PA to PK. 4. After the closure of the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined in terms of his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case. 5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire evidence brought on the file, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. 6. I have heard Mrs. Malkiat Mann, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. N. S. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file. 7. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. 6. I have heard Mrs. Malkiat Mann, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. N. S. Gill, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file. 7. The first noticeable point of argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Investigating Officer in spite of secret information alleged to have been received by him, had not reduced the same into writing, nor he had sent the same to his immediate superior official, as required under Section 42 of the Act, therefore, for non-compliance of the aforesaid section, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. However, this contention put-forth on behalf of the appellant has been repelled by the learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab and at the same time, he has also relied upon a case law reported as Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala (2001)6 SCC 692 : (2001 Cri LJ 4002) wherein the said compliance is not mandatory if in the facts and circumstances, there is likelihood of running away of the accused. It has come in the evidence that immediately after getting the information, while on patrol duty, the police party had rushed to the place of information and he (the appellant), on seeing the police party had, also made an attempt to escape from the place of occurrence. However, he was overpowered there and then at the spot and as such, could not be allowed to run away. Learned counsel of the appellant could not point out any discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. No doubt, independent witness Harbans Singh, was also associated by the police during the investigation of this case, but later on, he was given up, as having been won over by the appellant. 8. I have minutely gone through the statements of the witnesses and find that they are in unison on all the material points of this case. In this view of my foregoing discussion, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant, fails to carry any conviction with me. 9. At the fag end of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out a discrepancy regarding mentioning of liquor sample in the report Ex. In this view of my foregoing discussion, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the appellant, fails to carry any conviction with me. 9. At the fag end of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out a discrepancy regarding mentioning of liquor sample in the report Ex. P. K. of the Chemical Examiner, but this discrepancy is also of no avail to the appellant inasmuch as a perusal of the said report goes a long way to show that in fact, in all, eight samples of poppy husk (Chura Post), which were sealed at the spot, had been received in the laboratory on May 22, 1997 and it were those very samples, which were analysed by the Chemical Examiner of the Government Laboratory, Patiala. No doubt, that word "liquor" has been written in the beginning of the report, but the details of analysis given in the entire report pertain to the samples of poppy husk. Thus, in the above given facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely held that in fact, it had happened due to bona fide mistake on the part of scribe of report, on account of which, word "liquor" had been written instead of "chura post". Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from the discrepancy as mentioned above in the report Ex. PK of the Chemical Examiner. 10. No other point has been urged or argued before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.