Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. Harwinder Singh alias Kaka son of Dharam Singh aged 37 years and Kashmir Singh alias Nika son of Dharam Singh aged 39 years, both residents of Village Khiala Balanda, Police Station Hariana in District Hoshiarpur, have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and sentence order, both dated July 16, 1999, passed by Sh. Gurnam Singh, the then Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, in case First Information Report No. 15 dated February 20, 1997, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) registered at Police Station Hariana. They were convicted under Section 15 of the Act and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay rupees one lac as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on February 20, 1997, Inspector Swaran Dass received information on telephone that both the appellants indulged in the smuggling of poppy husk and the same could be recovered from them in the large quantity. Sub Inspector Ravinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector Gurnam Singh and other police officials were joined in the police party. P.W. Gurdev Singh, an independent witness, was also joined. `Nakabandi then was held at the turning point of Village Khiala Balanda. At about 6.45 A.M. a tractor-trolley was spotted coming from the side of Jaja Chowk. Harwinder Singh alias Kaka (appellant) was driving the tractor while Kashmir Singh alias Nika (appellant) was sitting in the trolley. The tractor-trolley was intercepted. Inspector Swaran Dass asked from both the appellants as to whether they wanted their tractor-trolley to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Both the appellants reposed faith in the police party. Their consent memos (Exhibits P.C. and P.D.) were prepared. Harwinder Singh alias Kaka (appellant) signed it while Kashmir Singh alias Nika (appellant) thumb marked it. P.W. Gurdev Singh, Sub Inspector Ravinder Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector Gurnam Singh attested the consent memos. Six bags containing poppy husk were found lying in the trolley attached to the tractor. Each bag was weighed and it was found to contain 37 kilograms and 250 grams poppy husk. These bags were then sealed by Inspector Swaran Dass with his seal bearing impression of letters `SD. Six bags containing poppy husk were found lying in the trolley attached to the tractor. Each bag was weighed and it was found to contain 37 kilograms and 250 grams poppy husk. These bags were then sealed by Inspector Swaran Dass with his seal bearing impression of letters `SD. The tractor-trolley and the six bags of poppy husk were then taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exhibit P. E). Both the appellants could not produce any licence or permit to keep in their possession the poppy husk. Ruqa (Exhibit P.F.) was sent whereupon this case was registered. Exhibit P.F/1 is copy of First Information Report. Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh was sent for at the spot. He came there after some time. Both the appellants along with six bags of poppy husk, duly sealed, were produced before him. He opened the seals on the bags. He took out sample of 250 grams of poppy husk from each bag. Samples were separately sealed. The remaining poppy husk was sealed in the same bags. The bags are Exhibits P-1 to P-6. Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh had sealed the samples and the bags with his seal bearing impression of letters `RS. The bags and the samples were entrusted to Inspector Swaran Dass and the enstrustment memo (Exhibit P.A.) was prepared. Site plan (Exhibit P.G.) was prepared showing the place of recovery. Inspector Swaran Dass, on reaching the Police Station, deposited the samples and the bags (Exhibits P-1 to P-6) with Moharrir Head Constable Tirath Ram, Incharge of the Malkhana. Six samples were thereafter sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. Report (Exhibit P.J.) of the Chemical Examiner was received. Their contents were found to be of poppy husk. On completion of the investigation, challan was put in against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. 3. The case was committed for trial and Sh. Gurnam Singh, Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, then tried it. He framed the charge under Section 15 of the Act, to which both the appellants did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. 4. The prosecution, at the trial, had examined six witnesses, namely, Satnam Singh, Clerk (PW-1), Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh (PW-2), Inspector Swaran Dass (PW-3), Head Constable Tirath Ram (PW-4), Sub Inspector Ravinder Singh (PW-5) and Constable Chhinder Pal (PW-6). 5. 4. The prosecution, at the trial, had examined six witnesses, namely, Satnam Singh, Clerk (PW-1), Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh (PW-2), Inspector Swaran Dass (PW-3), Head Constable Tirath Ram (PW-4), Sub Inspector Ravinder Singh (PW-5) and Constable Chhinder Pal (PW-6). 5. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations and complained of their false implicity in this case. They, however, adduced no evidence in their defence. 6. Arguments of the Ld. counsel for the appellants and of the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the respondent-State were heard and the evidence was scrutinised with their help. 7. The Ld. counsel for the appellants, first of all, argued that in this case the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with. He argued that partial offer was made. He pointed out that in consent memo (Exhibit P.C.) offer was given to Harwinder Singh alias Kaka (appellant) as to whether he wanted the search to be conducted in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer. Similarly, in consent memo (Exhibit P.D) regarding appellant Kashmir Singh alias Nika, the words are Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer. He referred to the case of Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 7. The accused-appellant was found in possession of 500 grams of opium and the offer given to him was whether he wanted the search before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer of Police Department. It was held that it was partial offer. The Investigating Officer only confined the offer of search before Gazetted Officer of Police Department. The question arises whether it was mandatory to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act in the circumstances of this case. Six bags, each containing 37 kilograms and 250 grams poppy husk, were recovered being transported in the trolley attached to a tractor. The law laid-down by the Apex Court is that Section 50 of the Act applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. The case of Saikou Jabbi v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 96, is referred here. The law laid-down by the Apex Court is that Section 50 of the Act applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. The case of Saikou Jabbi v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 96, is referred here. The Apex Court(laid-down that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable to a search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. In the case under reference heroin was recovered from suitcase of the accused-appellant. It was laid down that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable to such recovery. In the case of Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 104, the accused-appellant was given a notice asking him whether he would like to be searched by the Investigating Officer, Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He had given option of search before Investigating Officer. It was held that Section 50 of the Act was complied with, though the words that accused has a right in respect were not used, but it conveyed the sense that right of choice was of accused and not of officer. Regarding partial offer, the case of T.T. Haneefa v. State of Kerala, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 332, is referred here. There was recovery of contraband from the accused-appellant. He was given option of search before Magistrate and option of search before Gazetted Officer was not given. It was held that it was not illegal. In the similar circumstances, in the case of State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh and others, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 960, search of vehicle was made and 73 bags of popply husk were recovered. It was laid-down by the Apex Court that Section 50 of the Act will not apply. It is applicable where personal search of accused is made. 8. It is, therefore, concluded that the contention of the Ld. counsel for the appellants is not tenable that in this case the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with. These were, rather, complied with. Moreover, Section 50 of the Act was not applicable as it was search from a vehicle. The offer is not partial and is not bad, which is indicated from the consent memos (Exhibits P.C. and P.D.). 9. The next contention of the Ld. These were, rather, complied with. Moreover, Section 50 of the Act was not applicable as it was search from a vehicle. The offer is not partial and is not bad, which is indicated from the consent memos (Exhibits P.C. and P.D.). 9. The next contention of the Ld. counsel for the appellants is that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act were not complied with and as such the alleged seizure of poppy husk is rendered illegal. The evidence of PW-3 Inspector Swaran Dass reveals that he had received a secret information on telephone on February 20, 1997, that Harwinder Singh alias Kaka and Kashmir Singh of Village Khiala Balanda were dealing in poppy husk and they were bringing a larger quantity of poppy husk on the tractor-trolley and if `Nakabandi was held at the turning point of the village, then a large quantity of poppy husk could be recovered. It is argued that Inspector Swaran Dass did not reduce this information into writing and did not send it to the higher police officers and it is violative of Section 42 of the Act. The information furnished to Inspector Swaran Dass was not specific. No number of the tractor-trolley was given. In the case of Rajendra and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 349 (SC), it was laid down by the Apex Court that Section 42 of the Act will apply where the commission of offence is in any building or conveyance of enclosed place. Scope of Section 42 of the Act comprises of two components - one relates to the basis of information i.e., (i) from personal knowledge and (ii) information given by person and taken down in writing and the second is that the information must relate to commission of offence punishable under Chapter IV and/or keeping or concealment of document or article in any building, conveyance or enclosed place which may furnish evidence of commission of such offence. Unless both the components exist, Section 42 of the Act has no application. In the case of Durgo Bai and another v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 809, information given to the police was that something was to be smuggled in India. It was observed that it is not specific information within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Act. Unless both the components exist, Section 42 of the Act has no application. In the case of Durgo Bai and another v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 809, information given to the police was that something was to be smuggled in India. It was observed that it is not specific information within the meaning of Section 42(1) of the Act. It did not amount to violation of Section 42 of the Act if information was not reduced into writing. 10. It is, therefore, concluded that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act do not apply to the facts of the present case and its non-compliance does not vitiate the alleged recovery. 11. The Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on account of which the factum of the alleged recovery is rendered doubtful. He pointed out that according to PW-2 Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh, Farshi-Kanda was arranged when he reached the spot while according to PW-3 Inspector Swaran Dass, they had already arranged the weights and the scale along with Farshi-Kanda before the arrival of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Further, according to PW-2 Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh, he did not fill up CFSL form at the spot while P.W. 3 Inspector Swaran Dass deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had filled two CFSL forms at the spot. Further, according to PW-3 Inspector Swaran Dass, Kulwant Singh was the Station House Officer at that time while PW-5 Sub Inspector Ravinder Singh deposed that Swaran Dass was the Station House Officer at that time. Lastly, according to PW-3 Inspector Swaran Dass, F.I.R. number was not received by him during the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police while PW-5 Sub Inspector Ravinder Singh deposed that F.I.R. number was received at the spot in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The recovery was effected on February 20, 1997. Statement of PW-2 Deputy Superintendent of Police Randhir Singh was recorded on February 19, 1998, statement of PW-3 Inspector Swaran Dass was recorded on March 20, 1998 and statement of PW-5 Sub-Inspector Ravinder Singh was recorded on March 30, 1999. After lapse of time, human memory is apt to fade and one is not expected to remember minute details of the case. Such like discrepancies occur in every criminal case. The recovery is not, therefore, rendered doubtful. 12. After lapse of time, human memory is apt to fade and one is not expected to remember minute details of the case. Such like discrepancies occur in every criminal case. The recovery is not, therefore, rendered doubtful. 12. The Ld. counsel for the appellants argued that the poppy husk contained in all the six bags was not made homogeneous by mixing it and no representative sample was drawn out. In this respect, he relied upon the case of Pilli Dilli Dora v. State of Orissa, 1995 Crl, L.J. 1758. In this case, it was observed that the seized drugs in the packages/containers should be well mixed to make it humogeneous. Here, sample was drawn from each bag containing poppy husk. It was not necessary that the contents of all the bags should have been mixed up and made homogeneous. 13. It is argued that there was delay of six days in sending the samples to the laboratory. The contraband poppy husk was seized on February 20, 1997. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner on February 26, 1997. Such a delay, which may even be un-explained, does not cause any dent in the prosecution case. 14. To conclude, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order, both dated July 16, 1999, are upheld. The appellants were rightly convicted by the Ld. Special Judge, Hoshiarpur for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The sentence imposed commensurates with the offence committed, which calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed.