Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals on behalf of the accused appellants Jagbir Singh and Harjinder Singh are directed against the Judgment and order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 4/97 whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced each accused appellant under Section 8/21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 to 12 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 year additional R.I. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.04.1997 PW. 13 Alok Tewari, Asstt, Director, Delhi Revenue Intelligence received a secret information that approximately 25 to 30 kgs. Heroin is likely to be transported from Punjab to Bombay in a White Colour Tata Siera MP-09-N 6095. The vehicle will start from somewhere in the Punjab border on 17.04.1997 and go to Bombay via Delhi, Ajmer, Jaipur and Udaipur. The said information was reduced in writing by Alok Tewari (Exhibit P-68). Since, specific timings were not known, he scheduled Nakabandi at Delhi on 17 and 18 Jaipur on 18th and 19th and Bombay on 19th and 20.04.1997. He forwarded this information to his superior officer i.e., Deputy Director, Intelligence with a request to alert their units at Jaipur and Bombay for choosing appropriate Nakabandi points in their jurisdiction so that the maximum possible routes can be covered. A telephonic message was given to Deputy Director, Bombay and Asstt. Director, Jaipur for initiating necessary action. PW. 11 O.P. Dadhich, Asstt. Director, DRI, Regional Office, Jaipur immediately called his subordinate officers and started for Ajmer at about 8 PM and reached about 11 PM at Ajmer. On 18 .04.1997 the officer called the witnesses Rajkumar and Vijay Pareek and took their consent to accompany them. All the concerned persons started from Mangliawas to Ajmer and thereafter the Incharge, Police Station, Mangliawas was informed about it with the request to provide two constables for their help. The SHO. Police Station, Mangliawas directed two Constables namely Datar Singh and Laxman Lal to accompany them. Thereafter, they saw one White Colour Tata Siera Car bearing registration No. MP-09-N 6695 and gave a signal to stop it. The accused Harjinder Singh was driving the vehicle and another person Jagbir Singh was sitting near the driver seat. The SHO. Police Station, Mangliawas directed two Constables namely Datar Singh and Laxman Lal to accompany them. Thereafter, they saw one White Colour Tata Siera Car bearing registration No. MP-09-N 6695 and gave a signal to stop it. The accused Harjinder Singh was driving the vehicle and another person Jagbir Singh was sitting near the driver seat. Both the persons were informed by DRI Officers that they went to make search of the vehicle and it is for them to opt as to whether they went to give search before the Gazetted Officer or before the Magistrate. The accused persons agreed to give search before the Gazetted Officers. Thereafter, they brought the accused persons with their vehicle in the office of Custom Department at Ajmer. The necessary action about giving notice and obtaining acceptance was taken and thereafter a search was made in presence of Shri Nathu Lal Gehlot, Gazetted Officer. Total 25 packets were recovered from the secret places of the vehicle. The packets were marked as P. 1 to P. 25. The total weigh of all the 25 packets was 26.096 Kg. and net weigh of Heroin was 24.996 Kg. A recovery memo (Exhibit 34) was prepared by T.C. Gupta PW. 5 which bears the signature of both the accused persons Jagbir Singh and Harjinder Singh and both the witnesses Vijay Pareek and Rajkumar and also the Gazetted Officer Nathu Lal Gehlot. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken for taking samples. 25 packets were divided in 3 lots and 25 gram heroin was taken from each lot which were sealed and sent for chemical examination. The analysis report of the contraband sample (Exhibit P-51) dated 14.06.1997 was received wherein it was reported that each of the 3 sample is found by qualitative and quantitative analysis to be diacetyl morphine (Heroin) within the meaning of Section 2 xvi of NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Shri Sumit K. Das, Senior Officer, Revenue Intelligence, Jaipur through Special P.P. Filed a complaint before the District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Ajmer against both the accused appellants. The learned trial Court framed charge against both the accused persons on 21.08.1997 under Section 8/21 and Section 29 of the Act, 1985. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced documentary evidence also. The learned trial Court framed charge against both the accused persons on 21.08.1997 under Section 8/21 and Section 29 of the Act, 1985. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced documentary evidence also. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, CrPC in which they stated that neither any search was made in their presence nor any recovery was made from them. In defence the statement of DW. 1 Dr. V.K. Mathur was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused appellants from the charge under Section 29 of the Act but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants under Section 8/21(C) of the Act as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. S.S. Das and Mr. S.S. Hora contended that the learned trial Court committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants under Section 8/21 of the Act. It was contended that no search or recovery or anything was done at the spot by the Department where vehicle was seized near Magliawas but they took the vehicle in the office of Custom Department where they searched and seized the contraband heroin. There were two independent witnesses of Exhibit P-34 namely Vijay Pareek and Rajkumar. Rajkumar was examined as PW. 8 but at the time of recording his statement before the Court, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. Another witness Vijay Pareek was not examined in the present case by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them, therefore, recovery memo Exhibit P-34 is not proved from the statement of independent witnesses and in these circumstances the appellants cannot be convicted only on the basis of statement of the officers/officials of the Department who are interested witnesses. It was further contended that the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 were not complied with in the present case. There was no search authorisation with Shri T.C. Gupta under Section 41 of the Act. There is violation of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act. It was further contended that the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 were not complied with in the present case. There was no search authorisation with Shri T.C. Gupta under Section 41 of the Act. There is violation of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act. Shri T.C. Gupta was an officer at Jaipur who received an information about contraband but he did not reduce the said information in writing at Jaipur before he proceeded for Nakabandi and no such information was forwarded to the superior officer, therefore, this is a case of violation of Section 42 of the Act which is mandatory in nature and in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the Act, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. So far as Exhibit P-68, so called information dated 17.04.1997 is concerned it was contended that it is a fabricated documents and further that this document cannot be treated as an information for the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act. It was further argued that there is a non-compliance of Sections 52 and 55 of the Act also. Even if these provisions are directory in nature but non-compliance of these provisions has serious effects and the Honble Supreme Court has acquitted the accused persons where non-compliance of Sections 52 and 55 of the Act was found. It was further contended that Exhibit P-51 is the report of Asstt. Chemical Examiner, Department Opium and Alkaloid Department, Government of India and it is an important document and from this document it is clear that the names of the accused persons were mentioned as Jaginder Singh and Harminder Singh whereas the names of the accused appellants are Jagbir Singh and Harjinder Singh. It was contended that it is doubtful that this report Exhibit P-51 belongs to contraband recovered/seized from the accused appellants as name of the accused persons differ on it. It was also contended that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act are not admissible in the evidence as they were taken in duress which is clear from the statement of DW. 1 Dr. V.K Mathur who stated that accused Harjinder Singh was medically examined by him on 19.04.1977 and he found 20 injuries on his person. It was also contended that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act are not admissible in the evidence as they were taken in duress which is clear from the statement of DW. 1 Dr. V.K Mathur who stated that accused Harjinder Singh was medically examined by him on 19.04.1977 and he found 20 injuries on his person. He stated in his statement that if a person would have been weak then he could have died due to these injuries, therefore, learned trial Court wrongly relied upon statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the Act. It was further contended that vehicle was belonging to Salauddin, registered owner of the vehicle and he gave the vehicle to them, therefore, they had no knowledge about the contraband lying in the vehicle. It was also contended that there is a lack on link evidence in the present case. The case property was produced before the Court at a very belated stage. The Counsel for the appellants relied upon State of Punjab vs. Balkar Singh & Anr., 2004 (2) JCC 724 , Hari Mohan Mandal vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 (2) JCC 725 ; Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur vs. Murlidhar Soni & Ors., 2004 (2) CCC (SC) 68, N. Someshekar (dead) by L.Rs. vs. State of Karnataka, 2004 (2) CCC (SC) 71, Jitendra & Anr. vs. State of M.P., 2003 (3) JCC 1502 ; Valsala vs. State of Kerala Crimes V-1993 (2)....., Beckodan Abdul Rahiman vs. State of Kerala, 2002 (4) JT 68 (SC);; Bihari Manjhi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (4) JT 74 (SC). Union of India vs. Surja Ram & Ors., Cr. Appeal Nos. 1434-1435 of 1995, decided by Honble Supreme Court on 111.2002, The State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, 1999 (4) JT 595 (SC), Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, 2000 (1) JT 471 (SC), Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., JT 2000 (1) SC 481, Bahadur Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2002 (1) JCC 12 , State of Haryana vs. Vikram Singh, 2002 (1) JCC 266 , Manoj & Anr. vs. Shriram TPT. Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2002 (1) JCC 267 , Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs. State of Goa, 2004 (3) JCC 1827 , Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) JT 330 (SC), Mohd. vs. Shriram TPT. Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2002 (1) JCC 267 , Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs. State of Goa, 2004 (3) JCC 1827 , Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) JT 330 (SC), Mohd. Saleem vs. The State of Delhi, 1997 JCC 412, Vikram Tikoo vs. State (Delhi), 1997 JCC 417, Lalman vs. State (Delhi), 1998 DLS 214 HC, Chander Pal & Anr. vs. State, 1998 DLS 219 HC, Ramdayal Bishnoi vs. State, 2001 (89) Delhi Law Times 388 and Babu vs. State, 1999 II AD (Cr.) Del. 45. 6. Mr. T.P. Sharma, Special P.P. contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. There was sufficient evidence available on the record to convict the accused persons with the crime. There is sufficient compliance of Sections 41, 42, 43, 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in the present case. He contended that provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not attracted in the present case as recovery of the contraband was made from public place. He alternatively submitted that even if Section 42 is attracted in the present case then Exhibit P-68 is available on record which is an information recorded by PW. 13 Alok Tewari, Asstt. Director and the said information was forwarded by him to his superior officer Deputy Director, therefore, there is sufficient compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The so called information received at Jaipur was not an information but it was instructions given by superior officer. He contended that the vehicle was stopped on the public way and as such the provisions of Section 43 in the present case will be attracted and not the provisions of Section 42 and in these circumstances it was not necessary to reduce the so called information by Jaipur officers in writing and to forward the same to the superior officer. He contended that Panchnama was prepared at the spot and in this connection he referred the statement of PW. 11, who at page 2 of his statement stated that recovery memo was prepared at the spot. For the purpose of conscious possession of the contraband he referred the statement of PW. 1 Datar Singh, PW. 2 Yograg Singh and PW. 5 T.C. Gupta. 11, who at page 2 of his statement stated that recovery memo was prepared at the spot. For the purpose of conscious possession of the contraband he referred the statement of PW. 1 Datar Singh, PW. 2 Yograg Singh and PW. 5 T.C. Gupta. With regard to slight change of names of accused in report Exhibit P-51, he contended that it is merely a spelling mistake of the names of the accused persons Jagbir Singh as Joginder Singh and Harjinder Singh as Harminder Singh. He referred the report Exhibit P-51 and contended that case number, the description of the packets, the marking of the samples, the name of the officers, all are mentioned in the said report and these details tally with the letter whereby samples were forwarded, therefore, only on the basis of this minor spelling mistake in he names of accused, it cannot be said that the said report does not belong to the present case. He also referred the statement of the accused persons Jagbir Singh (Exhibit P-48) and Harjinder Singh (Exhibit P-62) wherein there was no reference of any injury and contended that there were no injuries on the person of accused Harjinder Singh and Jagbir Singh at the time of recording their statement and as such there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the Act which is admissible in evidence and even the conviction of the accused persons can be upheld on the basis of such evidence which is legal and admissible evidence. In alternative, it was contended that even if as per statement of DW. 1 it is assumed that accused Harjinder Singh sustained injuries, then at least, there is no evidence of any injury on the person of accused Jagbir Singh and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of accused Jagbir Singh atleast. So far as independent witnesses in the present case is concerned, he contended that recovery of the contraband is proved from the statement of PW. 5 T.C. Gupta who has proved the recovery memo before the Court and even if witnesses to recovery memo have been turned to hostile or not examined, does not fatal to the prosecution case as there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW. 5 T.C. Gupta in this regard. Exhibit P-34 recovery memo has also been proved by PW. 5 T.C. Gupta in this regard. Exhibit P-34 recovery memo has also been proved by PW. 3 Nathu Lal Gehlot, Gazetted Officer. 7. The learned P.P. Referred to G. Srinivas Goud vs. State of A.P., 2005 CrLJ 4367, State of M.P. vs. Bala @ Balaram, 2005 CrLJ 4371 , Karnail Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (4) Crimes 53 (SC), M. Thomas @ Joyi vs. State of Kerala, 2000 (4) Crimes 59 (SC), Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala, 2001 CrLR 504 (SC), State of U.P. vs. Jhinkoo Nai, 2001 CrLR 509 (SC), Amar Singh vs. Union of India, 2005 (5) WLC (Raj.) 301, Shanker Lal & Parthu vs State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) RCC, Jan 83, Shankarlal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) RCC 282 Mubarak & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 CrLR 267 (Raj.), Ramjas & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 CrLR 277 (Raj.), Prahlad vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) EFR 135, Rekha vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, 1992 CrLJ 901 , C. Shanmugam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1992 CrLJ 905 , Hardeep Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2001 CrLR 15 (Raj.), Ratan Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2001 CrLR 20 (Raj.), Balbir Singh @ Bera vs. State of Punjab, 2005 CrLJ 2917 , Manohar Singh vs. State, 2005 CriLJ 2919, Babubhai Obhavji Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (7) Supreme 691 , M/s. Gopal Zarda Udyog & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, 2005 (7) Supreme 694 , Narayanaswamy Ravishankar vs. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2003 CriLJ 27, Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandhai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003 CrLJ 28 , Smt. Krishna Kanwar @ Thakuraeen vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) Supreme 815 , M/s. Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement, 2005 (1) Supreme 824, State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand, 2004 (2) Supreme 497 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors., 2004 (2) Supreme 501 , Durgo Bai & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (6) Supreme 93 , Mohd. Malek Mondal vs. Pranjal Bardalai & Anr., 2005 (1) SCC 608 , State of U.P. vs. Shyam Veer & Ors., 2005 (10) SCC 611 , State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors., 2004 (4) Supreme 3 and Labh Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India, 2002 CrLJ 28. 8. vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (6) Supreme 93 , Mohd. Malek Mondal vs. Pranjal Bardalai & Anr., 2005 (1) SCC 608 , State of U.P. vs. Shyam Veer & Ors., 2005 (10) SCC 611 , State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors., 2004 (4) Supreme 3 and Labh Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India, 2002 CrLJ 28. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and considered their submissions whit the help of record of the trial Court as well as the case law cited at the Bar. The case law referred above was read by the learned Counsel for the parties in detail during course of arguments. The case law is based and decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. 9. So far as recovery memo Exhibit P-34 is concerned, it is correct that independent witnesses namely Vijay Pareek and Rajkumar have not proved it. PW . 1 Rajkumar was declared hostile and Vijay Pareek was not examined by the prosecution. However, recovery memo P. 34 is proved by the statement of PW . 5 T.C. Gupta and Nathulal Gehlot. In G. Srinivas Goud vs. State of A.P. (Supra), Apex Court held that there is no bar for policeman to act as Panch witness. The requirement of Section 42 (2) of the Act need not to be extended to cases of arrest, search and seizure by officers of Gazetted rank. Therefore, recovery of the contraband in the present case weighing 25 kg. heroin is proved. As regards violation of provisions of Section 55 of the Act are concerned, the Honble Supreme Court in Babubhai Odhavji Patel vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), held that provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act are directory and not mandatory. The recovery of contraband was made from public place, therefore, provisions of Section 43 of the Act, in the present case are attracted and consequently the violation of Sections 41, 42 and 50 are of no consequence. With regard to spelling mistakes in names of accused in Exhibit P-51 report of Asstt. Chemical Examiner is concerned, the same is of minor nature. With regard to spelling mistakes in names of accused in Exhibit P-51 report of Asstt. Chemical Examiner is concerned, the same is of minor nature. The report further shows that case No., the date of occurrence, the weigh of sample and the name of the Investigating Officer are same and tally with forwarding letter of sample, therefore, it does not leave any doubt that report Exhibit P-51 belongs to this case itself . So far as confessional statement of the accused persons are concerned although it is clear that accused Harjinder sustained injuries but there was no injury on the person of other accused Jagbir Singh and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of accused Jagbir Singh recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The conscious possession of the accused is apparent from the evidence on record and this is wrong to say that as vehicle was belonging to Salauddin, therefore, accused persons were not knowing that they were carrying contraband in their vehicle. The statement of Jagbir Singh recorded under Section 67 of the Act is sufficient to uphold the order of the trial Court convicting the accused persons. The recovery of contraband from the accused persons is also proved and that is also sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused persons. The conscious possession of the contraband is proved from the statement of PW . 1 Datar Singh PW . 2 Yograj and T.C. Gupta PW . 5 and other surrounding circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence on record in detail as well as provisions of law of the Act and I find that trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge levelled against them. The quantity of contraband 25 Kg. Heroin recovered in the present case is so large that it does not appear to be a case of planting. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere in the order of the trial Court. Consequently, the appeals of both the appellants fail and are hereby dismissed.