JUDGMENT :- Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment rendered by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Special (NDPS) Case No.5 of 2004. By the impugned Judgment, appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(i)(b)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, “the N.D.P.S. Act”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,00,000/- (Rs.One lac) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-PSI Mohd. Kabir, who was attached to Itwara Police Station, Nanded, received a secret information on 3rd March, 2004 to the effect that one person was transporting contraband “ganja” on his scooter on WajegaonNanded road. So, P.S.I. Mohd. Kabir gave intimation to the superior Police Officers. He called panch witnesses, a shopkeeper alongwith weighing scale and weights as well as Police staff members. He also called for a Photographer. All of them went to Degloor road with intention to carry out the raid. P.S.I. Mohd. Kabir disclosed his intention to conduct the raid for suspected recovery of ganja. They stopped near a shop called “Milan Tent House” situated at Degloor-Nanded road. At about 12.40 p.m., they noticed that one scooter vehicle was coming from Degloor Naka towards Nanded. There was a gunny bag on the pillion seat of the scooter. The scooter was intercepted. On enquiry with the scooterist, it was confirmed that gunny bag contained “ganja”. The ganja was weighed. The weight of ganja was found to be 20 kgs. From the stock, 100 gms. of ganja was separated. The sample of 100 gms ganja was put in a packet, which was duly sealed. The remaining ganja was refilled in the gunny bag and was seized. The scooter bearing registration No.MH-28-1197 was also seized. A seizure panchanama was then drawn. The Photographer took photographs of the steps taken during the course of search and seizure. The appellant was arrested and was taken to the Police Station. P.S.I. Mohd. Kabir lodged F.I.R. at the Police Station. The sealed sample packet was handed over to in charge of the Police Station. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Heme. The sample packet was sent to office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser. The appellant was arrested and was taken to the Police Station. P.S.I. Mohd. Kabir lodged F.I.R. at the Police Station. The sealed sample packet was handed over to in charge of the Police Station. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Heme. The sample packet was sent to office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser. After analysis of the contents, the Assistant Chemical Analyser opined that the sample packet comprised of flowering tops, seeds, pieces of greenish and brownish leaves and stalks of ganja. The appellant was charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 8 read with 20(i)(b)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. A charge was framed at Exh-4 and was explained to the appellant. He denied truth into the accusations. He asserted that he is framed in a false case. His defence was of total denial. He gave no explanation, whatsoever, as to why he was falsely implicated in the criminal case for alleged possession of contraband ganja. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 10 (ten) witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also adduced certain documentary evidence. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case on the basis of evidence placed on record. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant was found in conscious possession of the 20 kgs. Ganja which was being transported in a gunny bag on pillion seat of his scooter driven by him at the relevant time. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset. 5. Mrs. Ansari A. N., would submit that the prosecution could not prove possession of the gunny bag containing “ganja” with the appellant. The learned Advocate, would point out that PW - PSI Mohd. Kabir claimed to have given option to the appellant for search in presence of a Gazetted Officer but it was only illusory option because PW-Dy. S. P. Sunita was member of the raiding party. It is argued that the conviction is bad-in-Iaw because proper exercise of right under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not made available to the appellant. Mrs. Ansari seeks to rely On “Yusuf Kamruddin Momin Vs. Shri. U. R. Kulkarni & Anr.” 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1795. It is contended that the prosecution evidence is unreliable and that the recovery of 'gunny bag containing ganja is manipulated by the Police. Mrs. Ansari urged to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant. Mrs. Ansari seeks to rely On “Yusuf Kamruddin Momin Vs. Shri. U. R. Kulkarni & Anr.” 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1795. It is contended that the prosecution evidence is unreliable and that the recovery of 'gunny bag containing ganja is manipulated by the Police. Mrs. Ansari urged to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant. Per contra, learned A.P.P. Mr. D. R. Adhav would support the impugned Judgment. 6. As regards the fact of recovery, there is version of PW-1 Mohd. Kabir. He was attached to Itwara Police Station, Nanded, as Police Sub-Inspector. His version purports to show that on 3.3.2004, he received a secret information to the effect that one person was transporting ganja from Degloor road towards Nanded. He called for panchas after informing the superior Police Officer. He also called for Photographer. The scooter was intercepted. On enquiry, it was found that the gunny bag contained “ganja”. The gunny bag was opened in presence of panchas. It was found that the gunny bag contained green and dry leaves smelling like ganja. The version of PW-P.S.I. Mohd. Kabir reveals that 100 gms of ganja was separated and placed in white envelope. The envelope was sealed in presence of panchas. Thus, a sample packet was prepared. Thereafter, seizure panchanama was drawn. The seizure panchanama (Exh.12) is corroborated by PWP.SJ. Mohd. Kabir. His version reveals that the appellant was asked whether he was ready to give the search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Police Officer. The appellant is said to have consented for the search by the Police Officer. The consent letter (Exh.l0) is attested by PWP.S.I. Mohd. Kabir and is said to bear thumb mark of the appellant. The testimony of PWP.S.I. Mohd. Kabir lends corroboration to recitals of the F.I.R. (Exh.30). He gave information to the Dy. S.P. in writing under report (Exh.40). He admits that at Wajegaon outpost, there is a Police Officer appointed to keep vigil. He also admits that there are garages, pan stalls, hotels etc. near the shop called, “Milan Tent House”. He further admits that the appellant did not make any attempt to run away on seeing the Police Officers. He denied the suggestion that the scooter in question was parked by someone and the gunny bag containing ganja was found on the pillion seat thereof. 7. The version of PW-P.S.I. Md. Kabir is corroborated by PW - 2 Gul Mohammad. He further admits that the appellant did not make any attempt to run away on seeing the Police Officers. He denied the suggestion that the scooter in question was parked by someone and the gunny bag containing ganja was found on the pillion seat thereof. 7. The version of PW-P.S.I. Md. Kabir is corroborated by PW - 2 Gul Mohammad. He is a trader. He accompanied Police party in the relevant noon. His version purports to show that the appellant was found driving the scooter vehicle with a gunny bag on pillion seat. He weighed the contents of the gunny bag. His version reveals that the muddemal was found to be 20 kgs. His version further shows that l00 gms. ganja was separated and a sealed sample packet was prepared. He identified the sample packet (Article “A”). Nothing of much importance could be gathered from his cross-examination. He admits that he had seen the “ganja” on that day for the first time. He has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in the criminal case. 8. There are consistent versions of PW-3 A.S.1. Shaikh Maqdoom, and PW-4 Mohd. Roman regarding the search and seizure. Both of them confirmed that PW-P.S.I. Mohd. Kabir carried out the search of the gunny bag found on the pillion seat of the scooter driven by the appellant. There is minor discrepancy in the statement of PW-Mohd. Roman regarding consent expressed by the appellant for taking search of the gunny bag by the Police. He states that the appellant gave oral consent whereas, the version of PW-P.SJ. Mohd. Kabir is that it was written consent (Exh.10). The testimony of PW-Mohd. Roman reveals that he is an independent witness. It was for the first time that he acted as a panch witness. He corroborated recitals of the seizure panchanama (Exh.l2). His version reveals that alongwith the gunny bag, the scooter vehicle was also seized. His version shows that the gunny bag was lying near the pillion rider's footrest. Such minor discrepancy would not be sufficient to dislodge his version. 9. Similarly, versions of PW-5 Prakash (H.C.B. No.508), PW-7 Mohd. Khan (H.C.B. No.543) and PW-8 Dy. S. P.- Smt. Sunita lend corroboration to the case of prosecution regarding alleged search and seizure. His version shows that the gunny bag was lying near the pillion rider's footrest. Such minor discrepancy would not be sufficient to dislodge his version. 9. Similarly, versions of PW-5 Prakash (H.C.B. No.508), PW-7 Mohd. Khan (H.C.B. No.543) and PW-8 Dy. S. P.- Smt. Sunita lend corroboration to the case of prosecution regarding alleged search and seizure. The evidence of all these witnesses would prove, unmistakably, that the appellant was found driving LML scooter vehicle at the relevant time and there was a gunny bag on the pillion seat, which contained “ganja”. The version of Photographer - PW-9 Vijay also supports the case of prosecution. 10. The oral evidence tendered by PW-10 P.S.I. Herne shows that he carried out investigation into the crime. He sent the sample packet of ganja to the office of the Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad alongwith forwarding letter (Exh.32). He received the report of Assistant Chemical Analyser (Exh.34), which indicated that the sample contained “ganja”. His cross-examination reveals that the scooter was owned by one Lashkar Molu of Shegaon. He did not record the statement of said registered owner. He admits that the muddemal was in the custody of Muddemal Clerk until it was brought before the Court. He admits that the gunny bag was not sealed. The version of PW -6 Santoshi (PCB No. 1904 ) shows that he carried the sealed sample packet on 3.3.2004 and reached the same at office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad on 4.3.2004. He delivered original forwarding letter (Exh.24) at office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad. It is important to note that the sealed sample packet was handed over to the carrier on the very same day and it was reached to office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser on the next day of the alleged search and seizure. The promptitude would rule out possibility of tampering with the sealed packet. There is no tangible reason coming forth to infer that the sample packet was tampered with while it was in the custody of Muddemal Clerk for a short duration of few hours. 11. Considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that conscious possession of the gunny bag was with the appellant at the relevant time. He alone was riding on the scooter. 11. Considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that conscious possession of the gunny bag was with the appellant at the relevant time. He alone was riding on the scooter. It is not his case that someone else instructed him to drive the scooter vehicle for some other work and he did not check up as to what was on the pillion seat. The evidence on record reveals that on enquiry with the appellant, the fact that the gunny bag contained “ganja” was revealed. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that he alone was found in conscious possession of the gunny bag containing “ganja”. The prosecution has duly proved link between report of the Assistant Chemical Analyser and the sample, which was sent for analysis. 12. As regards contention of Mrs. Ansari in the context of right available under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it will have to be said that the case of “Yusuf Kamruddin Momin Vs. U. R. Kulkarni & Anr.” (supra) has no application to the fact situation obtained in the present case. For, this is not a case of personal search. So, whether the option was made available to the appellant for search in presence of a gazetted Officer or not, would hardly matter. The option under Section 50 is required to be given only when person of an accused is to be searched. 13. The legal position in this behalf may be considered. In “State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulatram” (2005)7 Supreme Court Cases 36, the Apex Court held that search of a bag carried by the accused on his head could not be regarded as his personal search. And, therefore, it was held that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not attracted in such a case. Needless to say, it was not necessary to give option to the accused/appellant for conducting of search in presence of a Gazetted Officer. Similar view is expressed in “Ravindran Alias John Vs. Superintendent of Customs” (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 410: [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2965 (S.C.)]. The Apex Court held that where arrest and seizure was made at bus-stand and not in any building, conveyance or enclosed place then Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not attracted. Similar view is expressed in “Ravindran Alias John Vs. Superintendent of Customs” (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 410: [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2965 (S.C.)]. The Apex Court held that where arrest and seizure was made at bus-stand and not in any building, conveyance or enclosed place then Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not attracted. It was not required, therefore, that the information ought to be taken down in writing or that the Officer concerned must send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior within72 hours. So also, it was held that Section 50 of the N.D,P.S. Act is not attracted in such a situation. Thus, plea of the accused that he was not informed of his legal right to get his personal search conducted in presence of a gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was held unsustainable. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, it will have to be said that conviction of the appellant is quite legal and proper. There is nothing redeeming about the appellant. The offence is serious one. The sentence awarded to the appellant is in keeping with nature of the offence and provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, the appeal is destitute of merits. 15. In the result, the appeal IS dismissed. The impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence is maintained. Appeal dismissed.