JUDGMENT UMA NATH SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment dated 13.7.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Sessions Trial No.16 of 1994 (Sessions case No.17 of 1994), holding the accused-appellant guilty of an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentencing him to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused - appellant was directed to undergo RI for one year. It appears that this matter was heard earlier and disposed of vide an order dated 21.3 .1997 and thereafter, in Crl. Appeal No.101 of 1998 preferred by the State of Haryana, Hon’ble the Apex Court vide a judgment dated 17.8.2004, remitted the case for afresh consideration on the ground that this Court while disposing of the criminal appeal, recorded acquittal on the sole ground that Section 50 of the Act was not complied with, whereas the said provision has no relevance in this case as the contraband, item in question had been recovered from a tanker and not from search of the person of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 3.1.1994, a secret information against the accused was received by Sub Inspector/Station House Officer Javed Khan, Police Station, Shahbad, where Janak Raj Sarpanch, a resident of Tyora, was present in connection with his private work. As per the secret information, accused Jaswant Singh alias Sethi, driver of Tanker No.URM-4757, was carrying a huge quantity of poppy straw from Babain Road to Shahbad. If prompt action was taken, he could be arrested on the spot with the contraband. An FIR was registered by the SHO/SI on that basis. The DSP, Headquarter, was informed telephonically about it. Thereafter, SI Javed Khan accompanied by police personnel, namely, ASI Prem Chand, Constables Darshan Singh, and Shyam Singh, and independent witness Janak ,Raj left in Government Vehicle No.HR-07-1746, driven by Constable Gurbachan Singh and laid a blockade/nakabandi on ‘T’ point on Babain Shahbad road near new grain market. ASI Jarnail Singh along with HC Banarsi Dass, Constables Om Parkash, Tara Chand, Bahadur Singh and Samey Singh also left in Gypsi PCR No.HR;.07-1746, driven by Constable Virender Singh for laying blockade/Nakabandi on Babain road. After some time, the tanker (URM 4757) reached the spot. ASI Jarnail Singh along with HC Banarsi Dass, Constables Om Parkash, Tara Chand, Bahadur Singh and Samey Singh also left in Gypsi PCR No.HR;.07-1746, driven by Constable Virender Singh for laying blockade/Nakabandi on Babain road. After some time, the tanker (URM 4757) reached the spot. It was stopped by the SI/SHO. The driver, i.e., accused was apprehended on the spot. He was served with notice (Ex.PG/l), in connection with the search of his tanker. He opted that his tanker could be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, the DSP, Headquarter, was requested to reach the spot. On the arrival of the DSP with his staff in a Government vehicle (HNQ- 6913), the tanker was searched in his presence. 92 plastic bags containing contraband poppy straw, were recovered from the tanker. On weighment, each bag was found to contain 20 kgs of poppy straw. A sample of 250 grams of poppy straw was taken out from each bag. The samples and the residue were put into different parcels. The parcels were sealed by affixing the seals’ JK’ and ‘RS’. The entire case property and the tanker were taken into possession vide a recovery memo (Ex.PA). The accused could not produce a permit or licence for keeping the poppy straw in his possession. Hence, he was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner and completion of investigation, the police laid a challan under Section 15 of the Act against accused Jaswant Singh for trial. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of secret information; the owner of the vehicle was not made an accused, and there was an inordinate delay of 30 days in dispatch of the sample. Janak Raj, the independent witness, was associated with search and seizure but the consent memo was not signed by him. Co-accused Varinder Pal Singh, who was travelling as co-passenger, was not made an accused. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment. 5. On due consideration of rival submissions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. DSP Ram Singh (PW1) reached the spot of recovery on receipt of information from SHO Javed Khan (PW5). Co-accused Varinder Pal Singh, who was travelling as co-passenger, was not made an accused. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment. 5. On due consideration of rival submissions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. DSP Ram Singh (PW1) reached the spot of recovery on receipt of information from SHO Javed Khan (PW5). When he reached the spot, the vehicle in question was parked, awaiting his arrival, to be searched. He has given detailed description of the part of the body of the tanker, wherein a huge quantity of contraband item had been cleverly concealed. It demonstrated the intention of the accused. He remained on the spot for about 3 hours. He has even stated as to how the weighing scale was fixed with a shisham tree. He prepared a separate report (Ex. PB). On seizure of the contraband, the SHO affixed his seal ‘JK’. The DSP also affixed his seal `RS’. The seal of the SHO was handed over to independent witness Janak Raj, who was given up by the prosecution as won over. : The DSP retained his seal because the case property was not lying with him. He identified the case property in the Court and also the tanker parked outside the Court. He has clarified that no member of public was willing to join the search and seizure. He also noticed an agreement to sell of the tanker in favour of the accused. Though this document was not exhibited but he has stated that it was available in police file. Krishan Lal (PW2) was posted as Moharrir Head Constable in the Police Station concerned. He submitted his evidence on affidavit (Ex.PC). He correctly recorded a DDR in respect of case property deposited with him. He also pointed out that the SHO before leaving the Police Station on receipt of secret information, made a DDR entry (DDR No.25) at 2.15 PM. He has clarified the reasons for delay in dispatch of sample in his cross-examination. According to him, it was due to intervening inspection of the Police Station and other duties. Constable Subhash Chander (PW3) also submitted his evidence on affidavit (Ex.PD) On 3.1.1994, the date of seizure; he had submitted the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate, the DSP and the SP concerned. According to him, it was due to intervening inspection of the Police Station and other duties. Constable Subhash Chander (PW3) also submitted his evidence on affidavit (Ex.PD) On 3.1.1994, the date of seizure; he had submitted the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate, the DSP and the SP concerned. ASI Jarnail Singh (PW4), also a member of police party, which seized the contraband, has supported the testimony of the DSP (PWl) in toto. According to him, the SHO made a DDR entry before departure from the Police Station. He has also reiterated that public witnesses were requested: - to join the investigation but they refused to do so. SI Javed Khan (PWS) is the SHO. On receipt of secret information regarding transportation of contraband in a tanker driven by the accused- appellant, he lodged the FIR (Ex.PG). Before leaving the Police Station, he also talked to the DSP concerned and sent a special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. Public witness Janak. Raj, Sarpanch, had come to the Police Station at about 2.00 PM. Secret information had been received at 2.10 PM the police had reached the spot at 2.20 PM. The tanker had reached there at 2.30 PM and the DSP, at 3.00 PM,As mentioned above, the DSP himself stayed at the spot for 3 hours and other police personnel had a longer stay over there. He has also reiterated that no other member of public was willing to join the police party. He recorded the names of such people in zimini proceedings. PW has proved all the exhibits connected with the search and seizure. Constable Tara Chand (PW6) gave his evidence on affidavit (Ex.PH). He was given the samples by the Moharr Head Constable on 1.2.1994 to be delivered in the FSL. Accordingly, he delivered the same and deposited the receipt in the Police Station. He has reiterated that there was no tampering with the seals of the samples. ASI Subhash Chander (PW7) had partly investigated the case on the direction of the SHO. He has also supported the part of the prosecution case which pertain to his investigation. The FSL Report (Ex.PF) found the samples to be contraband ‘poppy straw’. In the report, the seals of the samples were found to be intact and tailied with the specimen seals. He has also supported the part of the prosecution case which pertain to his investigation. The FSL Report (Ex.PF) found the samples to be contraband ‘poppy straw’. In the report, the seals of the samples were found to be intact and tailied with the specimen seals. Moreover in the cross examination of the Investigating Officer and the DSP, there is no defence suggestion on delay in dispatch of samples for chemical examination and the prejudice, if any, caused to the accused pursuant thereto. 6. Thus, it is noticed from the analysis of the aforesaid evidence that secret information received by the SHO (PW5) was not only entered in the DDR but the said information was immediately passed on to the DSP, a superior police officer, and the special report was dispatched without delay. Thus, there was a timely compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The police made all efforts to associate independent witnesses but they refused to do so. Besides, this is not a case of search of person of the accused and the recovery was effected from the body of the tanker. Therefore, in terms of ratio of the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in (i) (2004) 5 SCC 188 ( State of Haryana Versus Jarnail Singh and others ); (ii) (2005) 4 SCC 350 ( State of H.P. Versus Pawan Kumar ); and (iii) AIR 2005 SC Weekly 2133 ( Sate of Rajasthan v Ram Chandra ), it was not necessary to search the vehicle in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Even then, the’ entire proceedings of the search and seizure were carried in the presence of the DSP (PWI). The DSP has given a separate report (Ex.PB), as is evident from his testimony. The seals of the samples were also found to be intact by the FSL. 7. Thus, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment. The same is hereby affirmed and Criminal Appeal No. 607-SB of 1995, resultantly, stands dismissed