Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 20(B)(Il)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand) in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the S.I. Ram Bahal Singh of Buxar (Ind.) PS along with ASI and police force including many constables were on patrolling duty on the occasion of Chhath Puja on 21.11.2001 at 15.0 hours. It is alleged that when he reached near Hanuman Temple situated near Buxar Golambar he found that 8-10 persons were assembled in suspicious manner near a shop of Litti and Tea. He got the vehicle stopped and the persons who were assembled, seeing the Police Officer started fleeing and one of them was fleeing with a plastic bag. He was apprehended and caught by the S.I. He was inquired about the reasons of his fleeing, upon which he disclosed that there was ganja in the plastic bag and he disclosed his name as Sidhi Chaudhary alias Sidhnath Choudhary. The accused allegedly confessed his guilt. It is further stated, the Police Officer informed the accused that he had right to get his search done before a Magistrate/Gazetted Officer and if so desired he shall be taken there. But the accused declined and disclosed that he was convicted earlier also for doing the same business of ganja smuggling. Thereafter, in presence of witnesses he was searched, and in presence of witnesses the plastic bag of the accused was opened. Inside the plastic bag, some ganja and one weighing balance along with weights were recovered. On weigting rhe ganja, it was found to be 2 kgs and 400 gms. The seizure list was prepared on the spot and one copy of the seizure list was given to the accused also. The accused also gave his LTI on the seizure list. Inside the plastic bag, some ganja and one weighing balance along with weights were recovered. On weigting rhe ganja, it was found to be 2 kgs and 400 gms. The seizure list was prepared on the spot and one copy of the seizure list was given to the accused also. The accused also gave his LTI on the seizure list. It has been further stated that at the same place some portions of ganja was taken out from the seized ganja and three samples marked as exhibit S/1, S/2 and S/3 were prepared for their Chemical Examination and the rest ganja was also wrapped and sealed in a paper and cloth cover, thereafter, it was marked as Ex- hibit-A. The weighing balance and weights were separately sealed with cloths and was marked as Exhibit-B. The accused gave LTI on seized exhibit as well as samples and witness also signed over them. The informant also signed over them and members of patrolling party also signed over them. The accused disclosed that he had brought ganja from one Radhey Shyam Mishra who used to bring ganja from Netaji of Balihar. On the basis of the aforesaid, statement a case was registered as Buxar Mufassil P.S. Case No. 243 of 2001. ihe police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant was convicted as mentioned above. 3. The Appellant pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether five witnesses including the informant. PW 1 is Rakesh Kumar Sharma, he is witness of seizure and he has proved the seizure list. The seizure has been marked as Exhibit-1. However, this witness PW 1 denied in the Court that anything was recovered in his presence and thus was declared hostile. PW 2 is Bablu Khan PW 3 is Ram Bahal Singh, SI Police, the informant, PW 4 is Kiran Kumari, she is Scientific Assistant in Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, PW 5 is Daroga Manjhi, ASI. 5. PW 2, Bablu Khan has got a tyre repairing shop near Buxar Golambar, the place of occurrence. He has also admitted his signature which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1 on the seizure list. He has also stated that nothing was recovered in his presence and he has been also declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. PW 2, Bablu Khan has got a tyre repairing shop near Buxar Golambar, the place of occurrence. He has also admitted his signature which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1 on the seizure list. He has also stated that nothing was recovered in his presence and he has been also declared hostile by the prosecution. His attention was drawn towards his statement made before the 10 in which he has stated that in his presence from a plastic bag which was in possession of accused Sidhi Chaudhary, 2 kgs. and 400 gms. ganja along with weighing balance and weights were recovered but he also denied to have made such statement before the police. 6. PW 3 is Ram Bahal Singh. He is the informant of this case. According to him on 21.11.2001 when he was posted as SI at Buxar (Ind.) PS he along with ASI and some police constables was on patrolling duty on the occasion of Chhath festival. He had further stated that when they reached near Hanuman Temple at Buxar Golambar they saw that 8-10 persons had assembled near a Litti-Tea shop. According to him when jeep carrying police force stopped there, the accused persons fled away. He has also stated that he saw that one person had plastic bag in his hand who was asked to stop and when the SI enquired as to what was kept in the plastic bag, he disclosed that there was ganja in the bag. He disclosed his name as Sidhnath Chaudhary. He has further stated that he called two witnesses who had assembled there along with others and the police officer informed the accused that he had right to go for a search before a Magistrate Gazetted Officer, but he declined to get his search before a Magistrate. Thereafter, S.I. gave his own search to the witness and only thereafter plastic bag was got opened in which ganja and small weighing balance along with weights were found. The weight of recovered ganja was in all 2 kgs. and 400 gms. and weight measure was of 100 gm. Thereafter, S.I. gave his own search to the witness and only thereafter plastic bag was got opened in which ganja and small weighing balance along with weights were found. The weight of recovered ganja was in all 2 kgs. and 400 gms. and weight measure was of 100 gm. He has further stated that he prepared there sample-packets of ganja which has been marked Exhibit S/1, S/2 and S/3 and the remaining ganja was sealed and marked Exhibit-A. The weighing balance along with weights was sealed and marked as Exhibit-B and on the spot the samples and Exhibits were sealed and duly singed by witnesses. He also prepared seizure list and witness Rakesh Kumar Sharma wrote that ganja was recovered in his presence and he signed over it which was marked as Exhibit-1. According to him the other witness Bablu Khan also signed which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has also proved the signature of Deoraj Manjhi on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 1/2. According to him the accused has given his LTI on the seizure list. The seizure list has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. It has been pointed out that the occurrence is of 3-3.45 pm. on 21.11.2001 but the FIR was registered next day at 12.10 hours, though the place of occurrence is hardly half kilometre away from the Police Station i.e. from Buxar (Ind.) Police Station. 8. On this point, it appears from the judgment itself that Buxar (Ind.) PS does not register the case and cases are sent to Buxar main Police Station for registration. It has been stated in the judgment, on 21.11.2001 and 22.11.2001 being the Chhath Puja festival, everybody was busy with this festival Thus, the delay has been explained by the Court below itself. 9. It has been further submitted that PWs 1 and 2. the seizure list witnesses have not supported the factum of recovery of contraband substances. Admittedly, they have been declared hostile. They having supported the case of prosecution initially, did not support the case in Court. Usually in such cases the witnesses due to fear do not support the factum of recovery but since they put their signature over the seizure list, it shall be presumed that they witnessed the seizure. Admittedly, they have been declared hostile. They having supported the case of prosecution initially, did not support the case in Court. Usually in such cases the witnesses due to fear do not support the factum of recovery but since they put their signature over the seizure list, it shall be presumed that they witnessed the seizure. PW 3 in his deposition in para 2 has clearly stated that they signed in his presence. He also prepared the seizure list after his signature, he also got their signature. PW 5 the other witness was with the PW 3 has also fully supported that these two seizure list witnesses have signed on seizure list of the contraband substances. 10. The other point which has been raised by the learned counsel is that the procedure for search and seizure was not strictly followed and provision of Sec. 57 of the Act, was not complied with. However, from the deposition of PW 3 and PW 5, it appears that the contraband was seized and recovery was done by police party led by informant Ram Bahal Singh, PW 3 when he was on law and order duty on occasion of Chhath festival. On suspicion the appellant was apprehended and contraband substance was found inside the bag, the appellant was carrying. According to PW 3 and PW 5, they were also enquired from the appellant about his right to be searched before a Magistrate/Gazetted Officer. They also made search in presence of two independent witnesses. The appellant also put his LTI on the seizure list. The sample was also taken in presence of witnesses. The sample packets were duly prepared and sealed with signatures of witnesses and informant and remaining articles, were also packed and sealed and were sent to malkhana. PW 4 Scientist of Forensic Science Laboratory, has also confirmed that she received the sealed specimen/samples for the test. She also stated that the articles sent was contraband substance having TEX in it. From the above facts, I do not find that there has been any slackness on the part of informant in compliance with the provision of Act while performing seizure and making samples. 11. She also stated that the articles sent was contraband substance having TEX in it. From the above facts, I do not find that there has been any slackness on the part of informant in compliance with the provision of Act while performing seizure and making samples. 11. On the point raised that provision 57 of the Act has not been complied with by not informing his superior within 48 hours of the seizure and search as required and thus it was pleaded that this lacunae is enough to vitiate the trial. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on a decision in the case of Gurbax Singh V/s. State of Haryana in which the Apex Court has allowed the appeal on many other point including failure of investigating Officer to give full report of all particulars to his immediate superior. However, the facts of this case is different from the fact of that reported case. In para 9 of the decision so relied it has been specifically mentioned that Provisions of Secs. 52 and 57 are directory and not mandatory. As such, violation of these provisions could not ipso facto vitiate the trial or conviction. But, it should be made clear that the investigating agency have not investigated the case properly. Even the FIR was not registered under the Act and it was registered under Opium Act showing the ignorance of Investigating Officer. Thus, in the aforesaid decision so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant the investigation was faulty. Even the FIR was not registered under the Act, and it was registered under Opium Act. There were many other lacunae as well. Thus, their lordships held that it would not be safe to convict the appellant and he was acquitted. However, in this case there is no faulty investigation and thus points so raised have no force as already discussed. 12. In the circumstance, I do not find any reason and grounds to interfere with the conviction of the appellant and sentence passed by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below is hereby upheld and this Appeal is dismissed.