Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal jail appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 11.06.2003 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Cases, Udaipur (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 5/2002, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act” hereinafter) and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One lac, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the appellant has filed the instant appeal through jail. 2. Briefly stated, the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal, are that on 10.2001, at about 2:00 PM, PW 6 Dharam Singh Meena, Inspector, Central Narcotic Bureau, Udaipur, received a secret information that the appellant, who is a resident of Mainpuri (U.P.), is carrying 10 to 12 kgs of opium from Bhatewar in a vehicle. The information was reduced to writing vide Exhibit P/10 and was forwarded to the Commissioner, Narcotics Headquarter, Gwalior and the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Unit vide Exhibit P/18. Thereafter, alongwith PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh and other officials of Narcotics Bureau, he reached Sewashram Tiraha, Udaipur at about 1600 hrs. The motbirs were called and their consent to carry out the search in their presence was obtained. At about 4:15 PM, a suspected person came carrying plastic bag in his right hand and stood under a Shisham tree (Indian rosewood tree). It was stopped and after introducing that PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh is Inspector of Central Narcotics Bureau. Suspecting that person to be in possession of contraband opium, a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Exhibit P.8 was served on him and he was apprised of his right to be searched by a Magistrate or a gazetted officer or the seizure officer. The appellant gave his consent that he does not wish to be searched by a Magistrate or a gazetted officer but consented that his search may be carried out by the seizure officer PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh. On being searched, the appellant was found in possession of contraband opium weighing 11.500 kg. The appellant gave his consent that he does not wish to be searched by a Magistrate or a gazetted officer but consented that his search may be carried out by the seizure officer PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh. On being searched, the appellant was found in possession of contraband opium weighing 11.500 kg. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken and the remaining opium as well as the samples were sealed on the spot. The statement of the appellant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. Thereafter the appellant was arrested. The sample as also the remaining contraband opium were deposited in the Malkhana. After usual investigation, a complaint was filed against the appellant for the offences under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. The trial Court framed charge, to which the appellant denied and sought trial. The prosecution adduced evidence by producing as many as seven witnesses and the documents Exhibit P/1 to Exhibit P/19 The appellant made statement under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegation. The trial Court, vide impugned Judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above, Hence this appeal through jail. 3. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Central Narcotics Bureau. Carefully gone through the Judgment and order, as also the record of the trial Court. 4. It is contended by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant that the statement of the appellant (Exhibit P/6) recorded by the Central Narcotics Bureau, does not bear the time when it was recorded. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that in the arrest memo Exhibit P/7, the time of arrest of the appellant has been shown and likewise, in the seizure memo Exhibit P/2 also, the time has been shown and, therefore, non-mentioning of time on the statement of the appellant (Exhibit P/6) recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, shows that the statement Exhibit P/6 was recorded subsequent to the arrest of the appellant and, therefore, the statement Exhibit P/6 under Section 67of the NDPS Act cannot be used and conviction on that basis cannot be sustained. He has further contended that the seal which was used for sealing of the sample and the contraband opium was not destroyed. He has further contended that the seal which was used for sealing of the sample and the contraband opium was not destroyed. It has further been contended that PW 4 Rameshwar Lal Sharma was a member of the raiding party and it was he who carried the sample to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and, therefore, he being an interested person, the possibility of tampering with the seal while taking the sample to FSL cannot be ruled out. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Central Narcotics Bureau has supported the Judgment and order impugned and contended that there is categorical evidence of PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh that the search and seizure made at 1600 hours i.e. at 4:00 PM and thereafter the statement of the appellant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. He further submitted that the appellant made the statement Exhibit P/6 without any duress of harassment and that is why the appellant did not retract the statement Exhibit P/6 made by him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act even when he was produced before the Court and thereafter during trial and it was for the first time in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that he has made an effort to state that his signatures on Exhibit P/6 were obtained by assaulting him. He has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2003 (8) SCC 449 . Learned Counsel further contended that the contraband opium weighing 11.500 kg. was recovered from the possession of the appellant and the appellant failed to discharge the onus that he was not knowingly possessing the said contraband opium. According to the learned Counsel, in view of the provision of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the moment the contraband was recovered from the possession of the appellant, the onus shifted to him to prove that he did not knowingly possess the said contraband, but the appellant failed to discharge the onus and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have carefully scanned, scrutinized and evaluated the evidence on record. 7. In the instant case, the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (EX. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have carefully scanned, scrutinized and evaluated the evidence on record. 7. In the instant case, the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (EX. P/1) was served to the appellant and a copy of which was found in the pocket of the appellant after having been arrested. The appelant was carrying a bag containing the opium in his right hand. In view of the settled law, a search of bag cannot be said to be a search of a “person.” 8. In State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, 2005 (4) SCC 350 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the word “person” has not been defined in the Act. In view of the basic principles of interpretation of statutes, it becomes necessary to look to dictionaries to or ascertain the correct meaning of the word “person.” Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section, it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common-sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human-being will move about in a civilized society. Therefore, the word "person" would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc, can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human-being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human-being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a Thaila, a Jhola, a Gathri, a holdall, a carton etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act. It was further held by Their Lordships that search of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc. which is being carried by the accused, is not a search of the “person” and hence the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable. 9. Thus, in the instant case, there is no violation or non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. However, in the instance case, it was not mandatory to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, yet there is complete compliance of these provisions. 10. So far as non-mentioning of time on the voluntary statement Exhibit P/6 made by the appellant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is more than clear from the statement of PW 6 Dharam Singh that as per the secret information received by him vide Exhibit P/10 which was sent to the higher officer vide Exhibit P/18 and a copy whereof is Exhibit P/18-A, a team was constituted headed by PW 3 Rakesh Kumar and they started at 15:15 hours from the office. At about 1600 Hours, two motbirs were called and they were told about the secret information, who gave their consent to become the Motbirs of the recovery. At 16:15 hours, a person was found standing under a Shisham tree having a plastic bag in his right hand. On being signaled by the mukhbir, they rushed up near the person standing under the Shisham tree having a plastic bag in his right hand. On being asked in the presence of the motbirs, that person disclosed his name as Mahendra alias Narendra S/o Ram Sahai Yadav R/o village Paduwa, district Mainpuri (U.P.). On being signaled by the mukhbir, they rushed up near the person standing under the Shisham tree having a plastic bag in his right hand. On being asked in the presence of the motbirs, that person disclosed his name as Mahendra alias Narendra S/o Ram Sahai Yadav R/o village Paduwa, district Mainpuri (U.P.). The appellant was apprised that they have information about him having in possession unauthorised opium and want to search him. He was served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and also apprised him with his right to be searched either by a magistrate, or a gazetted officer or by the seizure officer. After taking consent to be searched by the seizure officer, one of whom was a gazetted officer, on search, it was found that the appellant was in possession of 11.500 kgs of opium. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken from the opium and the remaining opium was packed in the same polythene bag. The samples and the remaining opium were seized and sealed on the spot. By that time, it was 16:45 hours. Thereafter the Panchnama was prepared. Thereafter the site map etc. were prepared and by that time, it was 1800 hrs. Thereafter the statement Exhibit P/6 of the appellant was recorded under Section 67 of the Act by PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh. The appellant voluntarily admitted the guilt and thereafter he was arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit P/7. Exhibit P/7 shows that the appellant was arrested on 10.2001 at 1900 hrs. The statement of PW 6 Dharam Singh Meena further finds support from the statement of PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh;: PW 2 Jamuna Singh Yadav and PW 3 Rakesh Kumar. 11. PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh categorically stated that both the samples weight 25 grams each in polythene bag were kept in an envelope and on the spot, they were sealed-chit. After taking out the samples, it was tested on the Departmental Chemical Test Kit, whereupon it was found to be opium. The opium was seized vide Exhibit P/2; site was inspected vide Exhibit P/3. The specimen seal was prepared on the spot vide Exhibit P/4 and the seal was affixed at three places. Test memo Exhibit P/5 was prepared at the spot. He has proved the statement Exhibit P/6 of the appellant and the notice for personal search vide Exhibit P/7. The opium was seized vide Exhibit P/2; site was inspected vide Exhibit P/3. The specimen seal was prepared on the spot vide Exhibit P/4 and the seal was affixed at three places. Test memo Exhibit P/5 was prepared at the spot. He has proved the statement Exhibit P/6 of the appellant and the notice for personal search vide Exhibit P/7. After taking two samples, the remaining opium and the samples were sealed. The appellant was arrested. The FIR along with the relevant papers and the appellant were produced before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur vide Exhibit P/8. Thereafter the further investigation was handed over to PW 6 Dharam Singh Meena. The relatives of the appellant were informed vide Exhibit P/9. The Mudda-Maal and the samples duly sealed were produced in the Court. The sample of the seal Article 1, second sample Article 2 and the remaining opium sealed in the container Article 3 have been proved by him. He stated that these articles were properly sealed and the seals thereon remained in tact. While recording the statement of this witness, the trial Court also made a note that the articles were properly sealed and tallied with the specimen seal. Thereafter in the Court, these articles were again sealed in a container with the signatures of the Superintendent of Police. Even no question was put to this witness by the appellant that he did not make the statement Exhibit P/6 voluntarily under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 12. The other witness PW 2 Jamuna Singh Yadav was also a member of the raiding party. He, along with PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh and other officials of the Central Narcotics Bureau, went to the spot. He has proved the notice Exhibit P/1 under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the search and seizure of the contraband opium. He has also made the statement similar to that of PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh, including the time when the search was carried out. PW 3 Rakesh Kumar also made a similar statement like that of PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh and PW 3 Jamuna Singh Yadav. 13. Till these witnesses examined, it was not the case of the appellant that he did not make a voluntary statement, on the contrary, his signatures are there on the voluntary statement Exhibit P/6 recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 13. Till these witnesses examined, it was not the case of the appellant that he did not make a voluntary statement, on the contrary, his signatures are there on the voluntary statement Exhibit P/6 recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The appellant was produced before the Court and there also, he did not retract his statement Exhibit P/6. 14. PW 4 Rameshwar Lal Sharma stated that on 110.2001, he received two samples in the sealed condition at 8:30 PM from PW 3 Rakesh Kumar and he carried the same to the Government Opium & Alkaloid Works, Neemuch (M.P.) in the same sealed condition. He has proved the forwarding letter Exhibit P/12 and the receipt Exhibit P/16. Merely because this witness happened to be a member of the raiding party, it cannot be said that he is an interested persons in the success of the case and for which he would have tampered with the seals or the sample. The appellant failed to show any prejudice which may have caused to him on account of carrying the samples by PW 4 Rameshwar Lal to the Government Opium & Alkaloid Works, Neemuch being one of the members of the raiding party. 15. The entries in the Malkhana Register Exhibit P/13, Exhibit P/13-A and EX. P/14 have been proved by PW 1 Nagendrapal Singh PW 2 Jamuna Singh and PW 3 Rakesh Kumar. The motbir witnesses PW 5 Naresh Kumar and PW 7 Jitendra Singh have turned hostile. 16. In M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Supra), the Hon’ ble Supreme Court held that it is to be borne in mind that the accused-appellants did not make any complaint before the Magistrate before whom they were produced complaining of any torture or harassment. It is only when their statements were recorded by the trial Judge under Section 313 CrPC that a vague stand about the torture was taken. Under these circumstances, the confessional statements cannot be held to be involuntary. The statements were voluntarily made and can, thus, be made the basis of conviction. 17. The case in hand is squarely covered on the facts and law by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Prabhulal’s case (supra). Under these circumstances, the confessional statements cannot be held to be involuntary. The statements were voluntarily made and can, thus, be made the basis of conviction. 17. The case in hand is squarely covered on the facts and law by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Prabhulal’s case (supra). In the instant case also, after completing the formalities of search and seizure, as noticed hereinabove, the appellant voluntarily made a statement (Exhibit P/6) under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter he was arrested and produced before the Court. There also the appellant neither retracted the statement Exhibit P/6, nor stated that he was tortured or harassed, nor stated that his statement Exhibit P/6 was obtained by any coercive method. During the trial also, when the prosecution witnesses were being examined, no such question was put to the witnesses. It was only for the first time when the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code was recorded before the trial Court, a vague stand was taken by the appellant that his signatures were obtained on Exhibit P/6 by assaulting him, which cannot be said to be a retraction of the statement by the appellant. Even otherwise, it has been proved beyond doubt that the appellant was found in possession of contraband opium weighing 11.500 kgs without any licence or permit. Therefore, in view of the provision of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the onus was on the appellants to prove that he did not knowingly possess the said contraband opium. The other provisions, like Sections 57 and 42 of the NDPS Act have been fully complied with vide Exhibit P/8 and Exhibit P/10 respectively. The sample sent to the Government Opium & Alkaloid Works, Neemuch (M.P.), on being chemically analysed, was found qualitative and quantative to be opium within the meaning of the NDPS Act, 1985. 18. Thus, on close Scrutiny of the statements of prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence available on record. I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error in the Judgment and order impugned. 19. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any error in the Judgment and order impugned. 19. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2003 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 5/2002 against the appellant is hereby affirmed.