JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2003 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Una whereby the appellants/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs, 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. Case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 19.9.2002 at about 4.50 a.m. Police Inspector Rahul Sharma (PW-9) accompanied by a few other police officials, including HC Naresh Kumar (PW-3) was on Naka duty at Mehatpur Barrier. At that time H.R.T.C. Bus No. HP-22-379 bound from Delhi to Hamirpur arrived there and was stopped by the police party for the purpose of checking. On checking of the bus three bags Ext.P-2 to Ext.P-4 were found kept under seat Nos. 40, 41 and 42 occupied by the accused persons and Attachy Ext.P-1 was found kept between the feet of the occupants. 7 polythene bags containing poppy husk weighing 14 Kilograms was found in Attachy-case Ext.P-1, 5 polythene bags of poppy husk weighing 9 Kilograms were found in one of the bags, 4 polythene bags containing 9 kilograms of poppy husk were found kept in the second bag and 5 polythene bags containing 5 kilograms of poppy husk were found in the third bag. The contraband so found was taken in possession and after separating two samples each of 500 grams from each bulk of the poppy husk found kept in Attachy case Ext.P-1 and the three bags Ext.P-2 to Eit.P-4, the samples so taken and the bulk contraband of each container were made into separate parcels which were sealed with seal H. Specimen sample of the seal was separately taken and the contraband was seized vide memo Ext. PA. The proceedings referred to in memo Ext. PA were carried out in the presence of Chamel Singh (PW-1), Ravinder Singh (PW-2) and/the accused persons and they signed the said memo. The accused were informed of the grounds of their arrest vide memo Ext. PB and were formally arrested. PW-9 prepared Ruka Ext. PH and sent it to the Police Station where on the basis of said Ruka formal F.I.R. Ext. PJ came into being. The accused were informed of the grounds of their arrest vide memo Ext. PB and were formally arrested. PW-9 prepared Ruka Ext. PH and sent it to the Police Station where on the basis of said Ruka formal F.I.R. Ext. PJ came into being. Personal search of the accused persons was carried out vide memos. Exts. PC, PD and PE. PW-9 also sent information Ext. PK to S.P. Una. Accused and the case property were produced before Sub-Inspector Des Raj (PW-4) Additional S.H.O. Police Station, Una who re-sealed the case property with his seal Ext. BS and then handed it over to MHC Ved Prakash (PW-7) for being kept in safe custody. On 20.9.2002 PW-7 handed over four sample parcels to Constable Surjit Singh (PW-6) for delivery in CTL Kandaghat for analysis alongwith sample seal and NCB form. PW-6 handed over the aforesaid articles in CTL Kandaghat against receipt which he handed over to PW-7. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ext. PM found that the samples were of poppy husk. On completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons who came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge on a charge under Section 15 of the Act. 3. To prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined nine witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case as a whole and claimed to be innocent. The accused persons, however, did not lead any defence. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge found the charge against the accused persons proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the accused persons. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 6. Hence, this appeal by the accused persons. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 6. The learned Counsel for the accused assailed the impugned conviction and sentences on the following grounds : (I) that venue of alleged recovery and sealing the case property is not at the same place; (II) that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which render the recovery of contraband doubtful; (III) that conscious and exclusive possession of accused persons over the contraband is not proved; (IV) that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act; and (V) that the investigation was not fair. GROUNDS NO. I & II : 7. Since submissions for the accused on these two grounds are based on the alleged contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, these are taken up together for consideration. 8. Pressing these grounds into service, the learned Counsel for the accused contended that according to Chamel Singh (PW-1), the contraband was found in the bags and Attachy-case in the Police Post and everything including sealing of the sample was done at Police Post, Mehatpur whereas according to Ravinder Singh (PW-2), the sampling and sealing of the contraband was done at Mehatpur barrier, thus, there are contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses about the place of recovery rendering the prosecution case highly suspicious. 9. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that HC Naresh Kumar (PW-3) states that poppy husk was wrapped in polythene bags which were kept in Attachy-case and the bags and that 7 polythene bags were found in the Attachy-case and 5 polythene bags each were found in each of the two bags. Thus, he introduced a new case and also created a lacuna in the prosecution case as to from which bag the sample was drawn as it is not the case of the prosecution that the poppy husk contained in different polythene bags was ever mixed before taking the sample, therefore, the prosecution case is rendered unreliable. To substantiate his con tention the learned Counsel for the accused has relied on Taseen alias Yameen v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002, decided on August 10, 2004). 10. To substantiate his con tention the learned Counsel for the accused has relied on Taseen alias Yameen v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002, decided on August 10, 2004). 10. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the search, recovery and seizure in this case were effected at Check Post, Mehatpur as is the prosecution case vide Ruka Ext. PH and this part of the prosecution case is fully established in view of the statements of the Investigating Officer (PW-9), Ravinder Singh (PW-2) and HC Naresh Kumar (PW-3). He has further contended that even Chamel Singh (PW-1) has stated that the bus was stopped by the Police at the barrier at Mehatpur where at the time of routine checking the containers of the contraband were found below seat numbers 40, 41 and 42 of the bus which were occupied by the accused persons. He has further submitted that these containers were opened and poppy husk was found therein. However, thereafter he has given a different version regarding taking of the contraband etc. from the bus to the Police Post at a distance of 1-1/2 km. where the contraband was weighed and the process of sealing and seizure was completed. It was further contended that this may be because of lapse of memory or for a variety of reasons that PW-1 has made such a statement otherwise the process of sampling and seizure is fully supported by this witness and it seems to be so when on being allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution this witness has clearly and unambiguously stated that the bags and the Attachy-case were brought down and weighed on the spot at Mehatpur barrier. Therefore, simply because this witness has given two different versions at two different stages his stray admission contrary to the prosecution case cannot demolish the case. 11. A perusal of the statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9 clearly establishes that the bus in question was stopped at Mehatpur barrier, its checking was conducted there and during the routine checking the contraband was found kept under seat numbers 40, 41 and 42 of the bus which were occupied by the accused persons. It also clearly emerges from their evidence that the accused persons and the contraband were taken down from the bus and the process of weighing, sampling and seizure followed. It also clearly emerges from their evidence that the accused persons and the contraband were taken down from the bus and the process of weighing, sampling and seizure followed. It may also be pointed out here that the statements of these three witnesses about the proceedings taken on the spot have not been called in question by suggesting to them that the contraband was not weighed and the process of sampling and seizure was not done on the spot. Therefore, simply because PW-1 has made a self contradictory statement about the place of sampling and seizure, the confidence inspiring statements of the aforesaid witnesses cannot be disbelieved more so when PW-1 also admits at one stage of his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor that the seized contraband was "weighed at Mehatpur barrier on the spot." 12. It has been the constant case of the prosecution, as is evident from the contents of the Ruka Ext. PH, FIR Ext. PJ, recovery Memo. Ext. PA, Memo, of grounds of arrest Ext. PB and Special Report Ext. PG, that 7 polythene bags containing 14 kgs. of poppy husk were found in the Attachy-case Ext.P-1, 5 polythene bags containing 9 kgs. of poppy husk were found in one of the three bags, 4 polythene bags containing 8 kgs. of poppy husk were found in the second bag and 5 polythene bags containing 5 kgs. poppy husk were found in the third bag. What PW-2 states is that the recovered poppy husk was wrapped in polythene bags, 7 of which were found in the Attachy-case and 5 each in two bags and he does not remember about the third bag. He has also stated that on weighment the poppy husk in Attachy-case Ext.P-1 was found 14 kgs. and that kept in the bags Ext.P-2 to P-4 was found 9 kgs., 8 kgs. and 5 kgs. in the respective three bags. Apparently, this witness has not contradicted the prosecution version but his statement is strictly in conformity with the case of the prosecution. The other prosecution witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution version about the weight of the poppy husk found in each of the containers. Thus, there is no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in this regard. Even PW-1 has fully supported this part of the prosecution case. 13. The other prosecution witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution version about the weight of the poppy husk found in each of the containers. Thus, there is no contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in this regard. Even PW-1 has fully supported this part of the prosecution case. 13. A perusal of the record reveals that there is no confusion about the drawing of the samples of the recovered contraband. Case of the prosecution is that the poppy husk was found in one Attachy-case and three polythene bags and two samples each of 500 grams were taken from each of the bag and the Attachy-case. The contention that in this regard the version of PW-3 creates any doubt about the proper taking of the sample is, thus, without any merit and substance. 14. In Yaseen s case (supra), the case of the prosecution was that the contraband was recovered, and sealing and seizure thereof was carried out at a place known as NH-21 Kainchi Mor, Barmana, at a distance of 200 metres towards North of the Police Station, whereas, at the trial all the relevant witnesses came forward with the version that because of the darkness at the spot, the accused alongwith the bag and two witnesses was taken to the Police Station and the process of search, recovery, sampling and seizure was carried out at the Police Station instead of the spot. Thus, all the material witnesses had deposed contrary to the prosecution version that the recovery, search and seizure of the contraband was on the spot i.e. Kainchi Mor. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case relied upon, the accused persons cannot get any help of the decision in the said case and the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which render the recovery of the contraband doubtful, is unsustainable. GROUND NO. Ill 15. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence that the containers of the contraband were of the accused persons and were handled by them during the journey. GROUND NO. Ill 15. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence that the containers of the contraband were of the accused persons and were handled by them during the journey. No passenger of the adjoining seat has been examined in this regard and no belongings of the accused were found in the alleged bags so as to show that these belong to the accused persons, therefore, conscious and exclusive possession of the accused persons over the contraband is not proved. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel for the accused has relied on Bhagwan Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 Cri.L.J. 536). 16. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General contended that in view of the statements of the relevant witnesses particularly that of PW-2, it cannot be said that the accused persons are not proved to be in conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband. 17. All the material witnesses have stated that Attachy-case Ext.P-1 and the bags Exts.P-2 to P-4 were under seat Nos. 40, 41 and 42 which were occupied by the accused persons. Ravinder Singh (PW-2), who was also a conductor of the concerned bus, has stated that the bus started from Delhi at 8.30 p.m. on 18.9.2002 and that the accused persons present in the Court had boarded the bus on 18.9.2002 at Delhi ISBT and they were sitting at seat numbers 40, 41 and 42 and were also carrying bags alongwith Attachy-case and that during checking at Mehatpur, these bags and Attachy-case were recovered from the accused persons kept beiow seat numbers 40, 41 and 42. He has identified the Attachy-case Ext. P-1 and bags Exts.P-2 to P-4 as the same which the accused persons were carrying. Nothing has been suggested to him in his cross-examination to assail his evidence on this count by the accused persons. Thus, his statement that the Attachy-case Ext.P-1 and three bags Exts.P-2 to P-4 were being carried by the accused persons remains unchallenged. In view of this unchallenged testimony of PW-2, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Exts.P-1 to P-4 were in possession of the accused persons and the contention to the contrary is unsustainable. 18. In Bhagwan Dasss case (supra), two accused persons in that case were sitting on the road side and a bag was lying between them. In view of this unchallenged testimony of PW-2, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Exts.P-1 to P-4 were in possession of the accused persons and the contention to the contrary is unsustainable. 18. In Bhagwan Dasss case (supra), two accused persons in that case were sitting on the road side and a bag was lying between them. There was no evidence that anybody had seen any of the two accused handling the bag. Further, there was no evidence to show that any of them or both had either through a confession or otherwise admitted the bag to be belonging to him/them. Thus, it was found that there was no evidence to show as to who was in possession of the bag and there cannot be a presumption that both of them were in possession of the bag. In these circumstances, laying emphasis on the proposition that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove conscious possession of the accused in respect of the contraband and only thereafter a presumption can be raised under Section 35 or Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the accused persons were held not proved to be in conscious possession of the contraband. Evidently, the facts in Bhagwan Dasss case were different than those of this case. Therefore, the accused persons cannot derive any help from the ratio in Bhagwan Dasss case (supra). GROUND NO. IV 19. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that though SI Desh Raj (PW-4) states that he had sealed the case property with seal "BS" but this statement is evidently false for the reason that the seal used by him for resealing the case property has not been produced and when the case property was produced in the Court it did not contain seal "BS" allegedly used for resealing the case property, therefore, it is a case of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act and it cannot be said that the case property remained untampered with. It is, therefore, doubtful that the case property was ever deposited in the Malkhana and remained in safe custody and even production and deposit of the NCB form in the Malkhana is not established, therefore, the prosecution case must fail on this ground. It is, therefore, doubtful that the case property was ever deposited in the Malkhana and remained in safe custody and even production and deposit of the NCB form in the Malkhana is not established, therefore, the prosecution case must fail on this ground. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel relied on Mool Chand v. State (1993(3) Crimes 324) and Saffiulla v. State (Delhi Administration) (1993(1) Crimes 204). 20. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General contended that while noticing the seal impressions on the case property, the trial Court had not been attentive which is evident from the fact that the seal impressions H on such case property were found intact but the trial Court observed that one of the case property was sealed with seal N which mistake it corrected at the time of rendering the final judgment. Therefore, one of the possibility is that the trial Court has not observed the seal BS on the case property properly. It was also contended that in any case resealing of the case property pursuant to the provisions of Section 55 of the Act is not a mandatory requirement, therefore, even if it is a case of not resealing the case property in view of the other cogent and reliable evidence regarding safe custody of the case property the prosecution case cannot fail. It was further contended that it is evident from the statements of PW-9, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-6 that the case property remained in safe custody and untampered with. 21. PW-9, the Investigating Officer has clearly and unambiguously stated that he had filled-in the NCB form Ext. PM at the barrier and the case property etc. were taken to the Police Station where PW-4 resealed the case property. PW-4 has also clearly and unambiguously stated that the case property and NCB form were deposited with him by SI Rahul Singh (PW-9) which he resealed. It has not been suggested to him in his cross-examination that the case property and NCB form were not produced before him. He has further stated that he has handed over the case property etc. to the MHC Ved Prakash (PW-7). It has not been suggested to him in his cross-examination that the case property and NCB form were not produced before him. He has further stated that he has handed over the case property etc. to the MHC Ved Prakash (PW-7). PW-7 has stated that the case property alongwith sample seal and NCB form was handed over to him which he deposited in the Malkhana and on 20.9.2002 four samples alongwith sample seal and NCB form were handed over by him to Constable Surjit Singh (PW-6) for delivery in the CTL, Kandaghat. He has further stated that till the case property remained in his possession it was not tampered with by any one. There is no suggestion in his cross-examination suggesting any tampering with the case property. The statement of this witness is duly supported by PW6 who states that the case property alongwith the other documents was handed over to him for being deposited in the CTL and till the case property remained in his possession it was not tampered with. Even in his cross-examination there is nothing suggestive of any tampering with the case property or the NCB form handed over to him. In view of this evidence it is fully proved that NCB form was prepared on the spot and the case property and NCB form were duly deposited in the Malkhana. 22. In Mool Chands case (supra), the prosecution evidence lacked regarding depositing of the CFSL form in the Malkhana and the certificate. regarding comparison of specimen seal and the seals on the sample were found to have been issued in a routine manner, therefore, it was found that there was deficient material link evidence which resulted in the acquittal of the accused. Similarly, in Saffiullas case (supra), it was found that CFSL form was neither filled-up nor deposited with the Malkhana which led to the giving of benefit of doubt to the accused. However, there is no similarity of conclusions regarding non-deposit of the CFSL form and the NCB form in this case nor there is any additional factor which may be treated as deficiency in the link evidence produced by the prosecution. Thus, in view of the different factual aspects of these cases on one hand and those of the present case, the ratio in these cases does not in any manner help the accused persons. 23. Thus, in view of the different factual aspects of these cases on one hand and those of the present case, the ratio in these cases does not in any manner help the accused persons. 23. Insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused regarding non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act is concerned, PW-9 has stated that the case property and the accused were taken to the Police Station where Additional SHO Desh Raj resealed the samples of poppy husk in his presence and also resealed the containers of the bulk poppy husk Exts. P-l to P-4. Said Desh Raj (PW-4) corroborates the statement of PW-9 regarding production of case property etc. before him and his having resealed the eight parcels, bags and Attachy with seal BS and he has identified the resealed property. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he was unable to produce the seal BS or to assign any reason for non-production thereof though he has proved the sample seal Ext.P-11. However, some doubt about this part of their testimony is created because of the fact that when the case property i.e. Attachy Ext. P-l and the bags Exts.P-2 to P-4 were produced at the trial during the course of the statement of PW-1, as per the observations of the Court Exts. P-l, P-3 and the samples Exts.P-6 to P-9 were found to have the seal impression H and one of the bags i.e. Ext.P-2 was found to have seal impression H but its zip was. found sealed with seal N. The observations about existence of seal N on the zip of the bag Ext.P-2 stood explained by the observations of the trial Court in the impugned judgment by observing that impression N on the zip of the bag in fact is H. However, neither it has been observed by the trial Court at the time of the production of the case property at the trial nor has been stated by any of the witnesses who had identified the case property that apart from seal H, the case property also bore the seal impression BS. In these circumstances, some doubt is created about the alleged resealing of the case property by PW-4. In these circumstances, some doubt is created about the alleged resealing of the case property by PW-4. Therefore, the question arises whether deficiency in the evidence regarding resealing of the case property by PW-4 as provided under Section 55 of the Act is fatal to the prosecution case or not. 24. In Fredrick George v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2002 Cr.L.J. 4600), while dealing with a similar question as in hand, this Court held as under: "32. In so far the other case law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused to support his contention is concerned, the crux thereof is that in the given circumstances of a case non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act may lead to the conclusion that possibility of the case property having been tampered with cannot be ruled out and as a result of prejudice thus caused to the accused, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. There cannot be any dispute with this proposition and once the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act is coupled with such circumstance which may raise doubts about the safe custody of the case property, the benefit of doubt is bound to be given to the accused. It follows that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are not mandatory and non-compliance thereof ipso facto is not fatal to the case of the prosecution but such non-compliance has to be kept in view while appreciating the link evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the case property and samples had not been tampered with." 25. In Rajesh Basniyat v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 875), this Court held as under : "22. Be it stated that by now it is well settled in view of the various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court that provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act are not mandatory but are directory. The effect of non-compliance of these provisions ipso facto is not fatal to the case of prosecution but it effects the appreciation of evidence". 26. In view of the above, it is clear that provisions of Section 55 of the Act are meant only to re-enforce the link evidence regarding safe custody of the case property and non-compliance thereof ipso facto will not vitiate the trial or conviction. 26. In view of the above, it is clear that provisions of Section 55 of the Act are meant only to re-enforce the link evidence regarding safe custody of the case property and non-compliance thereof ipso facto will not vitiate the trial or conviction. In case there is other cogent and reliable link evidence about safe custody of the case property ruling out any tampering therewith, non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act will have no adverse bearing on the case of the prosecution. 27. In the case in hand, the samples of the recovered contraband and the contraband alongwith its containers were sealed with seal H by PW-9 on the spot as per the contents of seizure memo Ext. PA. PW-6 has fully supported this version in his statement on oath. There is nothing in his cross-examination from which it may be inferred that the samples and other case property were not sealed by him with seal H on the spot. His statement in this regard is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. Even in their cross-examination there is nothing from which it may be inferred that after the sampling process was over the case property was not sealed in a manner so as to render it incapable of being tampered with. From the spot the case property was taken to PW-4 and there is no suggestion to him that he, in any manner, tampered with the case property. PW-4 handed over the case property to MHC Ved Prakash for being kept in safe custody and this version of his is also not challenged in his cross-examination by putting any contrary suggestion. MHC Ved Prakash (PW-7) has stated that the case property alongwith the samples sealed with seal H was handed over to him which he deposited in the Malkhana. Out of the eight sealed samples, he handed over four samples to Surjit Singh (PW-6) for being delivered in CTL and the remaining case property was identified by him in the Court as Exts.P-1 to P-4 and P-6 to P-9 which was duly sealed with seal H as is evident from the observations of the Court made at the time of production of the case property in the Court during the course of examination of PW-1. He has further stated that till the case property remained in his possession nobody had tampered with the same. He has further stated that till the case property remained in his possession nobody had tampered with the same. There is no suggestion to the contrary in his cross-examination. 28. The case property other than the four samples sent to CTL, on production in the Court was found duly sealed with seal H and no tampering therein was noticed by the Court or pointed out by the defence. The case property was duly identified by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9. It has not been suggested to these witnesses in their cross-examination that the seal impressions H which were initially affixed to such case property were broken or tampered with in any other manner or that the case property produced at the trial was other than that sealed on the spot. 29. PW-6 who took four sealed samples to CTL, Kandaghat has also stated that so long as the case property remained in his custody nobody tampered with the same. He has also not been cross-examined at all about this version by putting any contrary suggestion to him. It may also be pointed out that the seal impression H was affixed on the NCB form Ext. PM also which was sent to the Chemical Examiner. In his certificates appended to his report Ext. PM, the Chemical Examiner has certified that the seals of the four samples of poppy husk brought to the laboratory by Surjit Singh were found intact and unbroken and the seals on the samples tallied with the specimen of seal sent separately. Thus, there is cogent, reliable and virtually unchallenged evidence on record that the case property was sealed on the spot. Such seals were found intact when the case property was produced in the Court and four samples thereof were delivered in the CTL and in between it remained in safe custody. Therefore, any tampering with the case property is ruled out and the deficiency in the evidence regarding resealing of the case property has no adverse bearing on the prosecution case. GROUND NO. V 30. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the investigation in the case was not fair. Therefore, any tampering with the case property is ruled out and the deficiency in the evidence regarding resealing of the case property has no adverse bearing on the prosecution case. GROUND NO. V 30. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the investigation in the case was not fair. To substantiate this contention, it was submitted that recovery and process of sealing of the case property was at different places, that the seals used for sealing the case property had not been produced, that the number of FIR finds mention in the NCB form prepared on the spot and there is interpolation in the NCB form, which render the investigation unfair. 31. Insofar as the contention raised about the recovery and sealing of the case property at different places, is concerned, that stand already negatived while deciding Ground No. 1 above. Production of seal used for sealing the case property is not the requirement of law, but at the most a factor to reinforce the link evidence. In the case in hand, as held herein above there is cogent and reliable link evidence, therefore, non-production of the seal has no adverse bearing on the prosecution version nor can it lead to the inference that the investigation was not fair. 32. So far as mentioning of the FIR number in the NCB form is concerned, no doubt it is mentioned in the form but its mentioning by itself is not indicative of any unfairness in the investigation. Each and every document sought to be produced in evidence by the prosecution in a case is required to contain the FIR number of the case to correlate it to the case. The NCB form was prepared by PW-9. It has nowhere been suggested to him that he had any bias against the accused and had the mala fide intention to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Thus, having failed to put any suggestion suggestive of any foul play in this regard the accused cannot claim that the investigation was not fair. 33. Insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that there is interpolation/cutting in the NCB form regarding the number of samples and is suggestive of missing link is concerned, it may be noticed that against entry No. 5 in Ext. PN, initially "Eight" samples poppy husk has been mentioned. 33. Insofar as the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that there is interpolation/cutting in the NCB form regarding the number of samples and is suggestive of missing link is concerned, it may be noticed that against entry No. 5 in Ext. PN, initially "Eight" samples poppy husk has been mentioned. However, after cutting the word "Eight" it has been substituted by "Four". At the time of examination of PW-6 nothing was suggested to him that this substitution was mala fide or unwarranted nor explanation about the circumstances under which this substitution was made was sought from him. Be it stated that in all eight samples of poppy husk were taken by PW-6. Against the relevant column insertion of word "Eight" may be because of the eight samples of poppy husk having been taken whereas only that number of samples was to be mentioned against this entry which were sent to CTL which number in fact was "four". Therefore, this correction in NCB form can neither be said to be mala fide nor prejudicial to the accused in any manner more so when the accused failed to call upon the witness by way of appropriate cross-examination to explain the aforesaid change in the number of the samples whereas as per the proved factual position the samples as per the substituted number in fact were sent to the laboratory. 34. In view of the above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the investigation in the case was not fair is unsustainable. 35. It may be pointed out that in view of the confidence inspiring evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-9, partially supported by evidence of PW-1, it is fully and firmly established that the poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. In view of the statements of PW-9, PW-7 and PW-6 and the Chemical Examiners report Ext. PM, the samples examined at the CTL are established to be those of the contraband found in the possession of the accused persons and that the samples were of poppy husk. 36. In view of the above findings and conclusions, the impugned conviction and sentence do not call for any interference by this Court. 37. As a result, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -