KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the convict and is directed against the order dated 30. 9. 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge under n. D. P. S Act, Krisnagar, Nadia in Special Case No. 2 of 2002 finding the appellant guilty under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act and consequently, imposing sentences of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of rs. 1,00,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is based on a prosecution report submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Bethuadahari Excise circle, Nadia on 6. 8. 2002 before the learned Special Court under N. D. P. S Act, Krisnagar and the case made out in the said report may be summarised thus : -On obtaining of source information, a raid was conducted at the house of accused/appellant, situated at village Sisha within the limits of Thanarpara police station at about 12. 00 noon on 7. 3. 2002 under the supervision of Sasim barai, Executive Magistrate -cum- Deputy Collector, Tehatta, Mehamud Aktar, sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tehetta, Subhas Chandra Mridha, superintendent of Excise, Krishnagar accompanied by other officials of Excise, Bethuadahari and Krishnagar circle and seized 50 Kgs of Ganja, kept in two polythene jars, four canestara tins and two gunny bags. The appellant was arrested for possession of the said quantum of ganja in contravention of Section 8 (c) of the N. D. P. S Act. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to prosecution, necessary formality as envisaged under section 50 of the Act was observed by the raiding party. Thereafter, 50 Kgs. of ganja, kept in two polythene jars weighing 5 kgs each, four canestara tins weighing 5 kgs each and two gunny bags weighing 10 kgs each were recovered from the different places of the house of the appellant. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid quantum of ganja and the containers were seized under a seizure list prepared on the spot. Witnesses and the appellant signed the seizure list and one copy of seizure list was served upon the appellant, subsequently, seized articles and the samples drawn from each of the containers were sealed and labelled. Thereafter, the samples drawn from the recovered contraband were sent to chemical examiner and the Chemical examiner submitted his report certifying the existence of ganja in the sample. Thereafter, the samples drawn from the recovered contraband were sent to chemical examiner and the Chemical examiner submitted his report certifying the existence of ganja in the sample. ( 5 ) ON the basis of aforesaid prosecution report and upon consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution before charge, the learned Trial Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N. D. P. S Act. ( 6 ) THE appellant did not admit the charge and demanded trial. ( 7 ) TO substantiate its version, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. In course of examination of PWs, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence which were marked as Exhibit 1 to 20 and MAT Exhibit i to VIII. ( 8 ) THE appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. The defence case, as suggested to PWs and as contended by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. is that nothing was recovered from his possession. ( 9 ) THE learned Trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence as well as submissions made on behalf of the parties found the appellant guilty under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act and accordingly, convicted and passed sentences upon him as indicated earlier. ( 10 ) BEING aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. ( 11 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 12 ) AT the outset, it is worthwhile to point out that the procedure for trial of a warrant ease instituted otherwise than on police report, laid down in sections 244-249 contained in Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been followed in the instant case. The procedure adopted by the learned Court below can not be said to iaffect the merit of the case or to have caused prejudice to the appellant. ( 13 ) WE heard Mr. Sekhar Basu,, assisted by Mr. Prabit Majumder and rajdeep Majumder, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Asimesh goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of West Bengal. ( 13 ) WE heard Mr. Sekhar Basu,, assisted by Mr. Prabit Majumder and rajdeep Majumder, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Asimesh goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of West Bengal. ( 14 ) WE have been taken through the judgement passed by the learned court below and the materials including documents filed therein. ( 15 ) MR. Sekhar Basu, learned Advocate raised the following contentions: - i) Although it is the definite case of the prosecution that relying upon a source information they recovered ganja after searching the residence of the appellant, it appears from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the provisions contained in section 42 (1)of the N. D. P. S. Act have not been complied with ; ii) There are inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of p. Ws. regarding the search and seizure of the contraband articles from the possession of the appellant; iii) The Chemical Examiner who had examined the sample in question, has not been examined and as such the appellant did not get an opportunity to cross-examine him about the nature of the sample received by him. The contents of the Expert report cannot be proved by P. W. 4 as has been done in the present case who is unaware of the contents of the report and when the prosecution having not taken recourse of Section 294 of the Cr. P. C. , the contents of the Expert report (marked as Ext. 19) can not be read in evidence. ( 16 ) THE judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of west Bengal and Ors. v. Babu Chakraborty reported in 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 1012 was cited by Mr. Basu for the proposition that in any case where the mandatory provisions under Section 42 (1) of N. D. P. S. Act are not complied with and where independent seizure list witnesses do not support the prosecution case, the accused would be entitled to be acquitted and that any seizure in violation of the mandatory provisions would be inadmissible since these provisions are in the nature of statutory safe guards. ( 17 ) MR. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Basu. Mr. ( 17 ) MR. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Basu. Mr. Goswami contended that there is enough evidence both oral and documentary to substantiate the prosecution case and once possession of ganja is established, the person, who claims that it was not a case of conscious possession, is required to establish such fact. Mr. Goswami further contended that in this case no allegation of enmity with the officers of the raiding party has been alleged by the appellant and as such, there is no plausible reason for falsely implicating the appellant. ( 18 ) MR. Goswami thus, prayed far dismissal of the appeal. ( 19 ) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side on facts and also on law. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, the appellant was charged for the offence under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act for illegal possession of 50 Kgs of ganja in contravention of Section 8 (c) of the Act. The case of the prosecution was that P. W. 8 Subhas Chandra Mirdha, Superintendent of Excise, Nadia received secret information and to work out the said information he along with remaining P. Ws. went to the house of the appellant on 7. 3. 2000 at 12. 00 noon and conducted a search of the house of the appellant between sunrise and sunset. What is important to notice is that the source information was taken down by P. W. 8 in his official information register and on getting approval of the same from A. D. M. (L. R) he informed the said fact to P. W. 4 who had also taken down the same in his personal diary. There is no denial of the said facts as disposed by P. W. 8 and P. W. 4 and the said witnesses have not been confronted in cross-examination to this part of the prosecution case. It is well settled that wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that testimony given could not be disputed at all. This is not merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice. It is well settled that wherever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that testimony given could not be disputed at all. This is not merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice. Therefore, the search conducted at 12 noon after sunrise and before sunset in the instant case was in compliance with the provisions of Section 42 (1) of the N. D. P. S. Act and the same would not affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial as contended by the learned Counsel of the appellant. ( 21 ) NOW we shall deal with the argument in relation to Chemical examiner report which has been marked Exhibit 19 by the learned Court below. It is evident from the Records of the Lower Court that the report of the Chemical Examiner was marked as Exhibit 19 on 28. 1. 2003 without objection in course of examining the P. W. 4 before charge. No objection had been made by the appellant in regard to the admissibility of the said document. Appellant having consented to the document being marked as an Exhibit, he, at a later stage, can not be permitted to turn round and contend that the said document is inadmissible in evidence. The question of judicial determination of the matter would arise provided an objection is taken when the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an Exhibit in the case. ( 22 ) THAT apart, in the instant case the appellant did not take a positive stand at the stage of recording the evidence that there had been any interpolation in the office of Chemical Examiner in relation to samples which were examined. In the report, Exhibit 19 of the Chemical Examiner under his official seal, it was specifically mentioned that 8 sealed packets marked A1. to a8 forwarded for examination with Memo No. 889 E dated 8. 3. 2002 of superintendent of Excise, Nadia in connection with State v. Mrityunjoy Biswas after chemical examination were found to be ganja and that the seal on the exhibits were intact and agreed with the samples seal sent. That means that up to the time the samples were examined there had been no interference in the same. 3. 2002 of superintendent of Excise, Nadia in connection with State v. Mrityunjoy Biswas after chemical examination were found to be ganja and that the seal on the exhibits were intact and agreed with the samples seal sent. That means that up to the time the samples were examined there had been no interference in the same. On the date of examining the P. W. 4 the seal of packets, wherein samples were kept, was opened as per prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor before the Court of learned Trial Judge and after opening the sealed packets eight small paper packets were found in properly sealed condition. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant before us is that without examining the Chemical Examiner, the report of the examiner can not be received in evidence under the provision of Section 293 of Cr. P. C. ( 23 ) INEVITABLY the issue must first be construed in the light of the language of Section 293 of the Code itself coloured as it is by the predecessor provision of Section 510 of the old Code. That the Legislature has kept the amplitude of the provision as a wide one seems to be manifest from the very opening part of Section 293 of the Code itself. The language does not seem to confine it to the opinion of the expert stricto sensu or to any artificially constricted meaning of his 'report'. Indeed, the statute talks of any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert. In legal terminology, the word 'document' is one of larger connotation and what is more, the Section brings within its ambit any such document purporting to be such a report. It would thus appear that there is no warrant for any artificial constriction or narrowing down the ambit of the report visualised under section 293 of the Code to only that part thereof which pertains to the opinion of the chemical Examiner and excluding all the rest therefrom. ( 24 ) AGAIN the significant words in Section 293 of the Code seem to be "upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis. " It would seem to be plain that the words 'duly submitted' include within their ambit the mode and manner of the submission of the sample and its receipt by the Scientific Expert. " It would seem to be plain that the words 'duly submitted' include within their ambit the mode and manner of the submission of the sample and its receipt by the Scientific Expert. Consequently, the report with regard to the manner of the submission of the sample for examination and its condition would come squarely within the scope of Section 293 of the Code. ( 25 ) IT seems to be obvious that recourse to Section 45 of the Indian evidence Act, in this context, is hardly permissible. It was not disputed before us that Section 293 of the Code was a special provision which in particular terms made admissible the reports of those Scientific Experts which have been enumerated expressly in sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code. It is obvious that special provisions of Section 293 of the Code herein must prevail over the general provisions of the Evidence Act, on the hallowed rule of construction that the special overrides the general. Consequently, the particular provisions regarding the admissibility of the reports of the Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, provided under Section 293 (4) (a) of the Code, are plainly applicable and any document purporting to be the report of such an expert can as a whole be used as evidence at the trial. Now once such a report is made admissible by law, it seems to us wholly hyper-technical to dissect it into different parts and hold certain parts thereof as being out of the ambit of such admissibility. ( 26 ) ON the larger canons of construction as well, it is not possible to accede to the view canvassed on behalf of the appellant. A reading of Section 293 of the Code, as also the corresponding provisions of the earlier Section 510, plainly indicates the clear policy of the Legislature to obviate the examination of expert witnesses in this context and making their reports admissible per se. Reference to sub-Section (3) would indicate that even where such an expert is summoned (unless expressly directed to appear personally), he may depute any other responsible officer working with him to depose about the same on his behalf. Reference to sub-Section (3) would indicate that even where such an expert is summoned (unless expressly directed to appear personally), he may depute any other responsible officer working with him to depose about the same on his behalf. To read this provision so stringently as to make every (or any) person handling the sample in the office of the Chemical Examiner, as a necessary witness, would, therefore, be in a way defeating the very purpose of the statute itself. It is plain that in practice it can hardly be possible to entrust all the samples to the Chemical Examiner himself or to the particular Analyst who may later come to examine the same. Therefore, the insistence upon obtaining the evidence or deposition of all employees of the Chemical examiner's office, who would meanwhile be concerned with the safe transmission of the sample originally received, may well render nugatory the purpose underlying Section 293 of the Code and inordinarily delay the conclusion of criminal trials which, it is the policy of the law, to conclude expeditiously. ( 27 ) VIEWED from any angle, it seems to follow that Section 293 of the code renders admissible the report of the Chemical Examiner as a whole, including the averments with regard to the condition of the sample and the seals thereon and the manner of its receipt. ( 28 ) WE accordingly hold that the neport of the Chemical Examiner of which genuineness is not disputed can be read in evidence as genuine without formal proof of such document by examining the author thereof. ( 29 ) REGARDING the search and recovery of contraband ganja weighing 50 kgs from the possession of the appellant, there was adequate evidence coming through the material witnesses examined in this case. We do not think it necessary to reproduce the evidence :since the learned Court below has elaborately discussed the evidence in paragraphs 9 to 20 of his judgment. The criticism of the learned Counsel appealing for the appellant regarding the evidence of material witnesses of the prosecution is based on some discrepancies in their statements. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to our mind are of a very insignificant nature and do not at all detract from the reliability of the material witnesses. Discrepancy is bound to occur as the witnesses are not expected to sing like a Greek Chorus. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to our mind are of a very insignificant nature and do not at all detract from the reliability of the material witnesses. Discrepancy is bound to occur as the witnesses are not expected to sing like a Greek Chorus. Evidence of witnesses which are free from discrepancy would only mean that they are outcome of fool proof concoction. To our mind the material witnesses of the prosecution stood the test of cross-examination very well and we are impressed with their testimony as they inspire confidence in the mind of the court. It is true that the material witnesses namely P. Ws. 1 to P. W. 8 happen to be the Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Magistrate, Tehatta, Sub-Divisional police Officer, Tehetta, Assistant Sub-Inspection of Bethhaduhari Excise Circle, officer-in-charge, Bethhaduhari Excise Circle, Sub-Inspector, Krishnagar East squad, Officer-in-charge, Excise Sadar Circle, Krishnagar, Deputy Excise collector and Superintendent of Excise, Nadia respectively but that by itself can not be a ground to view their evidence with any distrust. As a matter of fact, we have found the said Official witnesses to be reliable witnesses. We do not find any material to disbelieve the aforesaid witnesses touching the search and recovery of contraband substance (ganja) weighing 50 kgs from the house possessed by the appellant. A small contradiction here and there about the movement of the appellant at the time ot entry towards his residence could not make the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful. Minor discrepancies are very natural to occur in the testimony of different witnesses and the testimony of a witness can not be rejected outright on the ground that there were minor discrepancies or contradictions. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that the official witnesses touching the search and seizure had hostility towards the appellant. It is well settled that the testimony of the official witnesses are not to be discarded or disbelieved merely on the ground that they happen to be the official witnesses. A public servant must be assumed to act honestly and conscientiously until the presumption is rebutted. It would therefore, be basically wrong without cogent ground to consider them untrustworthy witnesses in respect of their activities in performance of their official duties merely because of their official status. ( 30 ) THERE is no controversy that the two independent witnesses namely p. Ws. It would therefore, be basically wrong without cogent ground to consider them untrustworthy witnesses in respect of their activities in performance of their official duties merely because of their official status. ( 30 ) THERE is no controversy that the two independent witnesses namely p. Ws. 9 and 10 have been declared hostile but that by itself does not go deep enough to discredit the testimony of me official witnesses. The prosecution version with regard to the search and seizure can not be thrown out on the ground that the independent witnesses do not support the version with regard to search and seizure. It is undisputed position of fact in case of search and seizure generally local people are reluctant to help the raiding party and even if they come forward, they do not disclose their actual address so that they may not face the trial before the Court. Even these witnesses have owned respective signature on the seizure lists. ( 31 ) APART from the aforesaid considerations, the facts of search at the house of the accused and recovery of contraband ganja weighing 50 kgs, kept in different containers in the house of the accused stand corroborated by the search-cum-seizure list (Exhibit 1/2 ), copy of which had been handed over to the appellant immediately after seizure and also on the face of the signature of the appellant with an endorsement on the back page of the seizure list. ( 32 ) THE burden of proof cast ccn the appellant under Section 35 of the n. D. P. S. Act can be discharged through different methods. One is that, he can rely on the material available in the prosecution evidence. Next is, in addition to that he can elicit answers from the prosecution witnesses through cross-examination to dispel any such doubt. He may also adduce other evidence when he is called upon to ente on his defence. ( 33 ) IN this case, there is no material appearing in the prosecution case so as to give reasonable assurance to the Court that the appellant could not have had the knowledge or the required intention. That apart, from the circumstances we are not in a position to hold that the appellant has discharged the burden of proof in such a manner as to rebut the presumption envisaged in section 35 of the N. D. P. S. Act. That apart, from the circumstances we are not in a position to hold that the appellant has discharged the burden of proof in such a manner as to rebut the presumption envisaged in section 35 of the N. D. P. S. Act. ( 34 ) THUS, on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, viewed in the light of our reasoning as given above, we have not the slightest hesitation in our mind in coming to a definite conclusion that the appellant was in illegal possession of 50 kgs of ganja at his residence situated at village Sisha within the limits of Thanapura Police Station on 7. 3. 2002 at about 12 noon. We are convinced that the act of the appellant contravenes the provision of Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act and the learned Trial Judge was perfectly right in recording the conviction and awarding the punishment to the appellant. ( 35 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Conviction of the appellant recorded under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act as well as punishment imposed for the commission of the said offence is hereby confirmed.