JUDGMENT: 1. These two appeals have been preferred by the two accused in Special Criminal Case No.21 of 2004. 2. Both appellants/accused were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Accused no.1 Shaikh Ishaq is sentenced to imprisonment for ten years while accused no.2 Nilkanth has been sentenced to imprisonment for four years. Both appellants hereinafter shall be referred to as accused nos.1 and 2. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under - Police Inspector Bijwe is serving in Special anti-Narcotic Cell of Crime Branch, Nagpur City. On 5/2/2004 he was as usual on petrolling duty. While he was on duty, he received an information that two persons namely Shaikh Gaffar and Nilkanth are to come back to their home with gunny bag containing Ganja. After having received this information, P.I. Bijwe sent an information to his superior and sought permission to carry out raid. He called two panchas and went near the house of accused no.2 Nilkanth. He laid a trap there. He found two accused coming with gunny bags on their head. He accosted them and disclosed his identify. He also asked them their names. Both of them disclosed their names. Mr.Bijwe, P.I., then informed them that they have a right to have their own search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accused, it is alleged, permitted Mr.Bijwe, P.I., to take their search. Accordingly, search of person of both the accused was taken. Some amount was found with accused no.1 which was seized. Then the contents of gunny bags were examined. It was found that they contained Ganja. The contents were weighed. It was found that accused no.1 Sk.Gaffar was carrying 20.500 kgs. and accused no.2 Nilkanth was carrying 5 kgs. of ganja. Two samples of 24 gms. each were taken. They were sealed in presence of the panchas and the accused with the seal bearing signatures of the accused as well as the panchas and the Police Inspector and intimation thereafter was again sent to the Superior Officer. The accused were brought to the Police Station, Panchpaoli. P.I. Mr.Bijwe lodged the report. He handedover the samples and two gunny bags in sealed condition to the Station Diary incharge who in turn handed over them to Malkhana incharge. Two samples were sent to the Chemical Analyser. Upon analysis, it was found that the sample contained ganja. The accused were brought to the Police Station, Panchpaoli. P.I. Mr.Bijwe lodged the report. He handedover the samples and two gunny bags in sealed condition to the Station Diary incharge who in turn handed over them to Malkhana incharge. Two samples were sent to the Chemical Analyser. Upon analysis, it was found that the sample contained ganja. A charge-sheet was, therefore, filed against the accused. 4. The learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon consideration of the evidence recorded, the learned Special Judge held the accused guilty and sentenced them as stated above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and have perused the record. 6. The first thing that is to be seen is whether there is a credible evidence to hold that the ganja was seized from the possession of the accused persons. I shall consider the evidence about compliance of various provisions of the Act at the later stage. 7. In this regard, it may be mentioned that there were as many as thirteen police men including Investigating Officer in the raiding party. Except P.I.Bijwe, no other witness has been examined from amongst the raiding party. 8. The two panch witnesses namely PW 1 Purushottam and PW 2 Dilip did not support the case of the prosecution at all. Both of them say that they do not know anything about the raid and their signatures were obtained while they were going by the Ring Road. They, however, admit their signatures on the panchanama and other documents. Since these two witnesses do not support, we are left with the evidence of PW 6 PI Mr.Bijwe alone. There is no rule that the testimony of Police Officer without corroboration cannot be accepted. 9. PW 6 P.I.Mr.Bijwe deposes that he had received the information that Sk.Gaffar and Nilkanth have gone to bring the ganja and would be coming back with it to their own house. He states that he laid a trap near the house along with panchas. He also states that around 14.45 hrs. they found two persons coming with a bag each on their head and Head constable Bandu identified accused no.1 Gaffar and accosted them and then they told their names and addresses. He states that he laid a trap near the house along with panchas. He also states that around 14.45 hrs. they found two persons coming with a bag each on their head and Head constable Bandu identified accused no.1 Gaffar and accosted them and then they told their names and addresses. He further deposes that accused no.1 Gaffar was made aware that he can have his search before a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and accused permitted to have a search taken by the raiding party itself. He states that the bags were opened, ganja was spread on the newspaper and it as weighed. He also states that ganja was found to be weighing 20 kg. 500 gms. Further he goes on to depose that he took samples of 25 gms., put it in an envelope which was sealed with the signatures of panchas, he himself and the accused. He also speaks of having obtained signatures of accused on sealing paper. He further tells of having sealed the gunny bag after putting ganja in it in similar fashion. PW 6 PI Bijwe goes on to depose about the seizure of ganja from accused no.1, sealing the sample and the panchanama drawn by him on the spot. He further deposes in a similar fashion with regard to the seizure of ganja from accused no.2 Nilkanth and sealing of sample. Exh.29 is the panchanama. In Exh.29, the spot is described as public road near house of accused no.2 Nilkanth. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that though the incident is alleged to have taken place on a public road, not a single person from public is cited and examined as witness. He submitted that since it is public road and time was 2.45 in the noon there ought to be many people around and also the passers by. He contended that there is no explanation why none of them could be cited and examined as a witness. He also contended that the panchas do not support and no other police officer from raiding party is examined and therefore the testimony of Mr.Bijwe (PW 6) be not relied upon. He relied on a decision of Supreme Court, reported in 2006(9)SCALE 644 (Ritesh Chakravarti ..vs.. State of M.P.). The Supreme Court makes following observations - 24. He also contended that the panchas do not support and no other police officer from raiding party is examined and therefore the testimony of Mr.Bijwe (PW 6) be not relied upon. He relied on a decision of Supreme Court, reported in 2006(9)SCALE 644 (Ritesh Chakravarti ..vs.. State of M.P.). The Supreme Court makes following observations - 24. In a case under the NDPS Act, recovery of contraband in presence of the independent person assumes importance. The seizure witnesses, viz., Pws 1 and 2 cannot be said to be independent in that way. PW . 2 was having a Pan Shop in front of the Bureau. Despite the fact that he was to carry on his business in front of the Bureau, he did not support the prosecution case. Why he was chosen to be a witness has not been disclosed. As noticed hereinbefore, PW-1 was an auto rickshaw driver. A constable on duty ordinarily would not know him. Why PW-5 had sent for PWs 1 and 2 as search witnesses and that too half an hour before leaving the office has not been explained. 25. If it was a busy place, the officers would expectedly ask those to be witnesses to the seizure who were present at the time of the place of occurrence. But, not only no such attempt was made, even nobody else who had witnessed the occurrence was made a witness. Even their names and addresses had not been taken. 26. Illustration (g) appended to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act reads thus : .The Court may presume - (a) *** (b) *** (c) *** (d) *** (e) *** (f) *** (g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who hold it. 27. An adverse inference, therefore, could be drawn for non-examination of material witnesses. 31. It was submitted that although Pws 1 and 2 were declared hostile, their signatures on the seizure documents had not been disbelieved. They categorically stated that their signature were obtained on blank papers and they were not witnesses to seizure. On the face of such statements made by the said witnesses, it was all the more necessary to examine all the departmental witnesses. 10. It appears, after reading the judgment, that the Supreme Court found that two panchas were not the independent witnesses from public. On the face of such statements made by the said witnesses, it was all the more necessary to examine all the departmental witnesses. 10. It appears, after reading the judgment, that the Supreme Court found that two panchas were not the independent witnesses from public. PW 2 was running a pan shop infront of the office of the raiding party and other was a rickshaw driver. It is observed that there is no explanation why these two were chosen as panchas when several persons could be available on the road and may be present at the time of the raid. The Supreme Court has laid an emphasis that the witnesses must be really independent since a stricter proof is required. In the instant case, the pancha witnesses were in fact passers by. It is so clearly mentioned in panchanama (Exh.29). Therefore, those were the witnesses who were available at the spot of occurrence and from the public. They could, therefore, be said to be witnesses who were, according to the mandate of the Supreme Court, as observed by the Supreme Court above. It is a different matter that even though they are independent they do not support. In the circumstances, we have to consider if the evidence of PW 6 Bijwe could be relied on as far as seizure is concerned. 11. We have seen that PW 6 P.I. Bijwe having stated about the accused being apprehended, on the spot and the ganja being seized from them. It must be borne in mind here that there is no possibility of ganja being planted looking to the quantity that was found with each of the accused. Accused no.1 was found with 20.500 kgs. of ganja and accused no.2 was found with 5 kgs. of ganja which is really a huge quantity. The evidence clearly establishes that the ganja was seized from both the accused and samples were taken and sealed. The evidence of PW 6 is also corroborated by the contents of the panchanama and the F.I.R. (Exh.42). In fact, there is nothing in the cross-examination of P.I.Bijwe to discard his testimony. 12. We have next to see if there was compliance of various provisions of Act which is by way of safeguard. It is stated by PW 6 Bijwe, P.I. that he had taken entry at Sr.No.32 in Station diary while leaving for raid. In fact, there is nothing in the cross-examination of P.I.Bijwe to discard his testimony. 12. We have next to see if there was compliance of various provisions of Act which is by way of safeguard. It is stated by PW 6 Bijwe, P.I. that he had taken entry at Sr.No.32 in Station diary while leaving for raid. The copy of the diary is Exh.48. He has further stated that he had taken down the information received and it was sent to Assistant Commissioner of Police. Exh.49 is the information which he had taken down at 13.00 hrs. He had also sent report to his Superior. Copy of the said report which is sent to his Superior is Exh.50. On the same letter, the Assistant Commissioner of Police has made an endorsement of having seen the intimation and having granted permission to carry out the raid. Thus, there has been total compliance of Section 42 of the Act. 13. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in this case, personal search of the appellants/accused was also taken and therefore compliance of Section 50 of the Act was also mandatory. He relied on a decision reported in [2007(1) Mh.L.J.(Cri.)437] (Dilip and another ..vs.. State of M.P. It is held that when search of person was taken before the search of scooter, compliance of section 50 of the Act was necessary. 14. PW 6 Bijwe, P.I., has also stated that he had sent intimation to the Superior as is required by Section 57. Exh.54 is the intimation to Assistant Commissioner of Police about the arrest of the accused and quantity of the ganja seized. There is, therefore, also a compliance of Section 57 of the Act. 15. The prosecution has examined the carrier of sample to the Chemical Analyser. He is PW 3 Sudhir . police constable. He has stated that he had taken the samples in sealed condition from muddemal moharir and he lodged them with Chemical Analyser on 6/02/2004. The prosecution has placed on record the duty pass (Exh.32) of Mr.Sudhir, police constable. It shows that Sudhir had taken samples to Chemical Analyser and was in that laboratory from 12.30 hrs. to 18 hrs. This corroborates his version. The Chemical Analyser is also examined in this case. He is PW 4 Chandrashekhar. The prosecution has placed on record the duty pass (Exh.32) of Mr.Sudhir, police constable. It shows that Sudhir had taken samples to Chemical Analyser and was in that laboratory from 12.30 hrs. to 18 hrs. This corroborates his version. The Chemical Analyser is also examined in this case. He is PW 4 Chandrashekhar. PW 4 states that he had received two packets in sealed condition and he opened them at the time of analysis and weighed the contents and found that each of them weighed 24 gms. He further deposed that he conducted three tests on the sample namely Fast blue Test, NE gmc test and thin chromatography test and found that the samples tested positive for Ganja. He denies the suggestion that he had not received sample in sealed condition. He further admits that the Chemical Analyser's report (Exh.39) does not bear an endorsement as to which tests were carried out. It is precisely for this reason that the prosecution has examined the C.A. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that the analysis was not done properly or it is vitiated. The C.A.report (Exh.39) clearly indicates that the sample was that of Ganja. These samples were produced in the court and even identified by PW 3 Sudhir . the carrier of sample. There is thus enough evidence to connect the C.A.report with the samples taken from the Ganja seized from the accused. 16. The accused also have examined one defence witness in order to show that the accused were apprehended in a gambling case and they have been unnecessarily implicated in the matter. The evidence of this witness does not at all inspire any confidence and is a got up witness. It is stated by DW 1 Kishor Dube that in all six persons were caught while gambling and all were taken to Panchpaoli Police Station and later to the Crime Branch of the Police. He sates that three were released and three were detained. There are only two accused in this case and if all six were in fact apprehended for gaming, it is difficult to accept that only two would be unnecessarily involved in this crime. There is no reason for the police to have a special grudge against these two. For this reason, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. There are only two accused in this case and if all six were in fact apprehended for gaming, it is difficult to accept that only two would be unnecessarily involved in this crime. There is no reason for the police to have a special grudge against these two. For this reason, the evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. On the other hand, the evidence as laid by the prosecution is enough to hold the accused guilty. Learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error in holding the accused guilty. I see no merit in the appeals. They are dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused is confirmed.