JUDGMENT :- Taking exception to his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (for short "N.D.P.S. Act") on being found in possession of 4 Kgs. 100 grams Ganja, and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, imposed upon him, accused in Special Criminal Case No.13 of 2004 before 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Akola has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts which led to appellant's prosecution are as under: On 26-08-2004 P.S.I. Pundkar of Crime Branch, Akola, while on patrolling duty, received information about a person bringing Ganja. He recorded information at Out Post, Mahan, informed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Murtizapur, and prepared himself to conduct raid. He went to Mahan Bus-stand where accused alighted from a taxi jeep. Since movements of accused were suspicious, P.S.I. Pundkar stopped him, identified himself, informed the accused of his right to be searched by a Magistrate or Gazetted officer and after accused agreed to be searched by police, searched him in presence of panchas. The officer found a bag containing 4 Kgs 100 gms. Ganja with the accused. He seized a bag, took out a sample of 100 gms. and sealed it and also sealed rest of the contents. He lodged occurrence report at Out Post, Mahan and also informed S.D.P.O. of the search and seizure. He then got inventory of seized articles verified from the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory by Moharrar of Police Station, Pinjar, in whose jurisdiction Out Post, Mahan is situated. After receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, showing that the sample sent was that of Ganja, accused was charge-sheeted. 3. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)-B of N.D.P.S. Act pleaded not guilty and hence, was put on trial. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses to prove guilt of the accused. Considering the prosecution evidence, in light of defence taken by the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforementioned. Hence, he has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard both, the learned counsel for appellant and learned A.P.P. for State. 5. With the help of learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence. P.W. 1 Maroti is hostile panch witness. Hence, he has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard both, the learned counsel for appellant and learned A.P.P. for State. 5. With the help of learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence. P.W. 1 Maroti is hostile panch witness. His evidence does not help in connecting the accused to crime. He merely admitted his signatures on the seizure form at Exh.19. P.W.2 Police Constable Prakash carried sample from P.S. Pinjar to the Forensic science Laboratory on 29th August, 2004 and deposited it in the Laboratory on 30th August, 2004 vide documents at Exh.24 to 27. P.W.3 A.S.I. Bedekar was Head Moharir at Police Station, Pinjar at the relevant time. He stated that on 26-04-2004 P.S.I. Pundkar delivered a sealed bag containing 4 Kgs. Ganja alongwith sealed sample containing 100 gms. of Ganja. He took necessary entries in Muddemal Register, extract whereof he proved at Exh.29. He stated that on 29-08-2004 he handed over the sample to P.C. Prakash for being lodged in the Laboratory. In crossexamination he stated that the officer incharge of the Police Station was Police Inspector Ane. He admitted that P.I. Ane had not put his seal or signature on the said sample. 6. P.W.4 P.S.I. Kailash Pundkar was working as Sub-Inspector in Crime Branch at Akola. He stated that on 26-04-2004 he received information about the offence under N.D.P.S Act and accordingly recorded information at Police Out Post, Mahan. He also took entry in the Station Diary and sent their formation to Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) at Murtizapur through Head Constable B.N. 1746. He called Panch and prepared for raid while at the same time making necessary entries at the diary of Out Post Mahan. He proved letter delivered by him to the Out Post Mahan at Exh.31 and carbon copy of the letter sent to S.D.P.O., Murtizapur at Exh.32. He stated that after preparing for raid and making necessary entry in the station diary he went to the Bus Stand at Mahan alongwith panchas. When a jeep taxi stopped at Mahan S.T. Stand accused alighted from the jeep, since his behaviour was suspicious, he was stopped and after P.S.I. Pundkar disclosed hi~ identity, the accused disclosed his name to be Manoj Gavai. P.S.I. Pundkar then told him that he could search the raiding party, which accused declined. When a jeep taxi stopped at Mahan S.T. Stand accused alighted from the jeep, since his behaviour was suspicious, he was stopped and after P.S.I. Pundkar disclosed hi~ identity, the accused disclosed his name to be Manoj Gavai. P.S.I. Pundkar then told him that he could search the raiding party, which accused declined. P.S.I. Pundkar explained the reason for search and also conveyed to the accused in writing vide Exh.34 that he was entitled to have himself searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused informed in writing vide Exh.35 that he was willing to be searched by police officers, P.S.I. Pundkar then stated that the accused carried a bag which was found to contain Ganja which weighed 4 Kgs. and 100 gms., out of which 100 gms. Ganja was taken as a sample. The sample as well as bag was sealed by the officer under his own signature, signatures of panchas as well as accused. 7. P.S.I. Pundkar further stated that he then conveyed information of the search and seizure at Out Post, Mahan vide Exh.36. An occurrence report was drawn up thereupon vide Exh.37. A detailed seizure panchanama of search and seizure was drawn up vide Exh.38. On the basis of occurrence report an offence was registered at Police Station, Pinjar vide Exh.39. P.S.I. Pundkar stated that he informed in writing to the S.D.P.O. Murtizapur about registration of the offence through P.C. 1166 vide Exh 40. He then deposited the property with Moharir of Police Station, Pinjar. P.S.I. Pundkar then stated that he applied to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barchi Takil, within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed, for verifying the inventory of the property. He proved his application at Exh.41 and certificate issued by learned J.M.F.C. at Exh. 42. He stated that the sample was forwarded through Police Station, Pinjar, to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Nagpur vide requisition signed by him at Exh. 24. C.A. report was received vide Exh.43. He filed copy of extract of station diary of Out Post, Mahan relating to the activity concerning the crime at Exh.44, Exh.45 is copy of similar extract of station diary at Police Station, Pinjar. The officer stated that after investigation he forwarded the charge-sheet. 8. In cross-examination P.S.I. Pundkar admitted that he could not state the time when he received information. The officer stated that after investigation he forwarded the charge-sheet. 8. In cross-examination P.S.I. Pundkar admitted that he could not state the time when he received information. He claimed that he reached Mahan at about 2.30 p.m. and went directly to the Out Post. He admitted that he was working in the Crime Branch and Police Inspector of local Crime Branch one Shri. Gawande who was his immediate superior. He admitted that he did not forward information of the crime to P.I. Gawande. He also admitted that A.P.I. Ane was working at Police Station, Pinjar and also that he had not informed A.P.I. Ane on phone about the search or seizure. He denied the suggestion that the documents about sending information or recording information were fabricated. He stated that Mahan Bus Stand is thickly populated place but admitted that he did not record statement of any person at Mahan Bus-Stand. He could not state the number of jeep from which the accused alighted. He denied that he had drawn up panchanama at Police Out Post. 9. The learned trial Judge had found this evidence to be adequate to convict the appellant and sentenced him for the offence punishable Under Section 20(b)(ii)-B of the N.D.P.S. Act. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence clearly shows that the Investigating Officer had not followed the procedure prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act and because of breaches of mandatory provisions of law the entire prosecution was bound to fail. He submitted that P.S.I. Pundkar had admitted that his immediate superior was P.I. Gawande and not Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Murtizapur. Yet P.S.I. Pundkar had not sent report to P.I. Gawande. Relying on decision of Supreme Court in Mohinder Kumar Vs. State, Panaji, reported at 1995 see 1157, the learned counsel submitted that breach of mandatory provisions should result in acquittal of the appellant, as held in the said three Judges decision of the Supreme Court which was followed up in Thandi Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported at 1999(3) Scale 117 . In that case non-compliance of provisions of Section 55 and 57 was held to vitiate the conviction. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in State by Intelligence Officer, NCB, South Zone, Madras Vs. P. Raja Singh reported at 1994(1) Crimes 990 . State of Haryana, reported at 1999(3) Scale 117 . In that case non-compliance of provisions of Section 55 and 57 was held to vitiate the conviction. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in State by Intelligence Officer, NCB, South Zone, Madras Vs. P. Raja Singh reported at 1994(1) Crimes 990 . The decision concerns noncompliance of provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 11. Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act requires an officer taking down information in writing or the grounds for his belief under proviso to sub-section (1) has to forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act requires a person making arrest or seizure under the Act to make full report of all particulars of arrest or seizure to the immediate official superior. In this case, it is not disputed that a report of arrest and seizure was indeed made by P.S.I. Pundkar. The report was however, sent to S.D.P.O., Murtizapur not to P.I. Gawande of Crime Branch who was P.S.I. Pundkar's immediate superior. In the case of P. Raja Singh, which was being considered by the Madras High Court, a report was made by the Raiding Officer to the Superintendent who was undoubtedly immediate superior of the raiding officer, but the Superintendent was himself supervising the entire search operation and therefore, the report to such Superintendent was held by the Court to be total non-compliance of the mandatory directions. While so holding, the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court observed that the rationale behind Section 57 is to ensure that there was no exaggeration or concoction afterward. The safeguard was to save innocent person from being subjected to unnecessary harassment. If this is the rationale behind requirement of immediately making a full disclosure to the superior, disclosure to S.D.P.O., Murtizapur would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The same would hold good for compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of N.D.P.S. Act. 12. The question as to the interpretation of the term 'immediate official superior' would have to be resolved with reference to the context and not with reference to the bureaucratic hierarchy of officers concerned. The same would hold good for compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of N.D.P.S. Act. 12. The question as to the interpretation of the term 'immediate official superior' would have to be resolved with reference to the context and not with reference to the bureaucratic hierarchy of officers concerned. Since P.S.I. Pundkar was conducting raid within the jurisdiction of the S.D.P.O., Murtizapur, his communicating the information, received prior to raid, and making a full report after the raid to the S.D.P.O. Murtizapur, must be held to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(2) and 57 of the Act. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Kishore Gopaldas Vs. State of Mah., reported at 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 813 : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 20], where question of non-compliance of Section 57 was considered. In that case reliance was placed in the decision of Thandi Ram Vs. State of Haryana, referred to above. It may be seen that in that case no such report as is required under Section 57 of the Act was factually found to have been sent to the immediate superior. Therefore, the decision would not help the appellant. 14. The learned A.P.P. submitted that three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala, reported at2001 Cri.L.J. 4002, categorically held that the provisions of Section 42 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act regarding intimation to be sent and report to be made to immediate superior are not mandatory and are directory. Similarly in Gurubax Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported at AIR 2001 SC 1002 , the Court held that the provisions of Section 52 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act are directory and not mandatory but On facts held that non-compliance had caused prejudice to the accused and hence, set aside the conviction. In view of these decisions, it is clear that noncompliance to the requirement of reporting to the immediate superior by P.S.I. Pundkar, by reporting arrest and seizure to the S.D.P.O., and prior to raid, communicating the information to the same S.D.P.O. was sufficient and the trial or conviction of the appellant cannot be vitiated on this count. 15. The learned counsel for appellant next submitted that Section 52 of N.D.P.S. Act requires that articles seized should be forwarded to the officer incharge of nearest Police Station. 15. The learned counsel for appellant next submitted that Section 52 of N.D.P.S. Act requires that articles seized should be forwarded to the officer incharge of nearest Police Station. Section 52(a) enables such officer to prepare an inventory and to get it certified from a Magistrate. Section 53 of the Act empowers the Government to invest officers in other departments with powers of officers incharge of the Police Station. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.S.I. Pundkar was not officer incharge of the Police Station. Since he did not belong to "other departments" he could not have been invested, and infact was not invested, with any such powers under Section 53 of the Act. Therefore, P.S.I. Pundkar was not authorised to carryout inventory of the material seized or get it verified from the Magistrate. Now, merely because the property was not sealed by A.P.I. Ane who was incharge of Police Station, Pinjar or because A.P.I. Ane did not carryout inventory or get it verified from the Magistrate, it would not imply that there is any serious breach of the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act relating to custody of the property, its sealing and carrying out inventory, so long as it is not shown that P.S.I. Pundkar had any specific animus against the accused to falsely rope him in by bypassing API Ane. 16. P.S.I. Pundkar lodged the property with P.W.3 A.S.I. Bedekar immediately after the raid. A.S.I. Bedekar had forwarded it with P.W.2 to Forensic Science Laboratory on 2908-2004. Thus, merely because P.S.I. Pundkar and not API Ane, caused interventory to be verified by the Magistrate it does not mean that the property seized was different from that which was inventorised. On the other hand, P.S.I. Pundkar himself caused these requirements to be complied reduced occasions for the property being handled by several persons, and therefore, reduced the chance of tampering. Hence, 'objection on this count has to be rejected. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the property had been lodged with Forensic Science Loboratory not on 30th August, 2004 but infact on 16-03-2005, as may be seen from copy of invoice challan at Exh.25. It is true that below the signature of clerk of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory on Exh.25 the clerk has put date "16-03-2005." This has created some confusion. This occurred because of original invoice challan was not on record. It is true that below the signature of clerk of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory on Exh.25 the clerk has put date "16-03-2005." This has created some confusion. This occurred because of original invoice challan was not on record. The Roznama shows that a copy of invoice challan was filed on record after the evidence of P.W. 1 Manoj was recorded. The learned A.P.P. had filed application Exh.20 on 14-03-2005 for time to produce documents, which were allowed to be produced on 22-032005. Therefore, merely because the original' was not found and a copy was required to be produced on record it does not follow that the evidence of P.W.2 P.C. Prakash about carrying of the property to the Forensic Science Laboratory or that of P.W.3 A.S.I. Bedekar about despatch of the property can be disbelieved because of date put on the copy by the clerk of Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.43 categorically shows that the property was duly received in the office of Laboratory on 30th August, 2004 itself. The report was issued on 03-09-2004. Hence, there is nothing wrong with the date under the signature of the clerk on Exh.25, because it seems to be the date on which the clerk had issued copy under his signature. 18. Relying on the decision of Orissa High Court in Kedarnath Mallik Vs. State, reported at 2001 Cri.L.J. 1307 the learned counsel for appellant submitted· that discrepancies regarding despatch of sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory would vitiate the conviction. The decision is in context of the specific facts of that case. In the present case the small discrepancy which crept in because of date 16-03-2005 on Exh.25 has been properly explained by the learned A.P.P. and hence, the decision has no bearing. 19. In view of this, the objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the procedure followed have to be rejected. On facts, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.S.I. Pundkar that he seized Ganja from the accused. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant, recorded by learned 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, cannot be assailed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, imposed upon the appellant considering the quantity seized cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant, recorded by learned 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, cannot be assailed. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, imposed upon the appellant considering the quantity seized cannot be said to be excessive. In view of this there is no merit in the appeal and it is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed.