JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and Order Dated 29.06.2002 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Balasore convicting the Appellant under Sections 20(b)(i) and 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years for the offence u/s 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act; the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the Officer-in-charge, Soro P.S. received reliable information at about 6.20 P.M. on 27.02.2001 that the Appellant was possessing and selling ganja in his house without any authority, made entry to that effect vide Station Diary Entry No. 623, intimated the said fact to the higher authorities, requisitioned services of an Executive Magistrate, as it was evening hours, to remain present at the time of search and seizure, and proceeded to the spot along with the Addl.Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Inspector Narayan Panda, Havildar Dinabandhu Patra, constables Basanta Kumar Jena, Pradip Kumar Behera, Aita Ekka, Ramachandra Pradhan, woman constable Sukanti Das and the APR force of Reserve Office, Balasore. Having reached there, he made the Appellant aware of their intention to search his house and the ground of their search, gave their personal search to the independent witnesses, namely, Keshab Dhada and Purna Chandra Mohapatra and being allowed by the Appellant entered into his house for search. In course of search, some ganja and opium were found kept in the storeroom of the house of the Appellant. On weighment by witness Purna Chandra Mohapatra by the weighing balance kept in the said storeroom, the recovered Ganja came to 46.400 KGs and the recovered Opium came to 370 grams. Two samples of 50 grams each from the ganja and also equal number of samples of 20 grams each from the opium were drawn. The samples and remaining Ganja and Opium were separately packed, labeled and sealed in presence of the witnesses and seal was made over to witness Purina Chandra Mohapatra under proper zimanama. Copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the Appellant. The samples and remaining Ganja and Opium were separately packed, labeled and sealed in presence of the witnesses and seal was made over to witness Purina Chandra Mohapatra under proper zimanama. Copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the Appellant. Then, the Appellant was arrested, taken to Soro P.S. along with the seized articles and handed over to the custody of S.I. Shri S.K. Behera (P.W.7) with a direction to investigate into the case. After closure of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the above Sections against the Appellant. 3. The plea of the Appellant is complete denial of the allegations. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and proved 15 exhibits in evidence. Defence examined none. 5. The Learned Special Judge, who tried the case, on the finding that the Appellant was found to be in possession of the contraband articles in his house, by his judgment dated 29.06.2002 convicted the Appellant under Sections 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He also convicted him u/s 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years with the further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 6. Mr. He also convicted him u/s 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years with the further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 6. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence mainly on the following grounds: (1) that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42(1), 42(2), 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act have not been complied with; (2) that no search warrant has been obtained though search and seizure was made after the sun set; (3) that the I.O. did not direct his investigation to seize the extract of the station diary entry; (4) that the vital witness Narayan Panda (Inspector) has not been examined, though prosecution witnesses have stated that said Narayan Panda was very much present during the search and seizure; and (5) that non-examination of Narayan Panda (Inspector) is fatal to the prosecution and throws grave doubt with regard to his presence at the time of search and seizure; In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions in Krushna Dora v. State of Orissa, (1994) 7 OCR 590; State v. Balbir Singh and Ors., (1994) 7 OCR 283 (SC); Dillip Kumar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa, (2000) 19 OCR 302; Dwarika ' Tarini Patra and Anr. v. State of Orissa, (2001) 20 OCR 288; Dadumani Sahu v. State of Orissa, 1997 (3) Crimes 486 ; Babadun Singh v. State of M.P. and Anr., 2002 (I) OLR 565 (SC); Hrushi ' Hurusi Behera Vs. State of Orissa, ; and Mobinden Kumar v. State, Panaji, Goa, 1999 SCC (Cri) 79. 7. Mr. S.K. Nayak, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the prosecution has complied with all the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. The seized Ganja and Opium were produced before the Learned S.D.J.M. on the next day of seizure wherefrom samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and rest of the articles were deposited in the Court Malkhana. After observing the formalities of search, the Officer in-charge, Soro P.S. (P.W.6), the Executive Magistrate (P.W.2), the woman constable and the independent witnesses entered into the house of the Appellant. After observing the formalities of search, the Officer in-charge, Soro P.S. (P.W.6), the Executive Magistrate (P.W.2), the woman constable and the independent witnesses entered into the house of the Appellant. On search, they found a heap of Ganja and a polythene packet containing Opium in the storeroom of the house. Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act provides for the personal search of a person suspected to have possessed contraband articles before an Executive Magistrate. P.W. 2, Additional Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Soro was present at the time of personal search of the accused and the police personnel. He further contended that Circle Inspector Narayan Panda, who was the immediate superior officer of P.W. 6, was reported immediately about the arrest and seizure. So, there is compliance of Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 8. Perused the LCR, more particularly the deposition of the witnesses and the decisions cited by the Appellant. The main factor which needs consideration in this case is whether the contraband articles were seized from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused or not. In the instant case, P.W. 1, an independent witness, turned hostile. P.W. 2, the Thahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate has stated that he accompanied the raiding party, i.e., O.I.C., S.I of Police, Inspector of Police and two independent witnesses, and after personal search by the accused, they all entered into the house of the accused. On search, a heap of Ganja was found stacked and a plastic container containing Opium was also found there. After weighment, the Ganja came to 46.400 KGs and the Opium came to 370 Grams. The OIC took two samples weighing 50 Grams each from the Ganja and also took two samples weighing 25 Grams each from the Opium. All the samples were sealed after being packed in four separate tin container. The rest Ganja and Opium were also sealed separately. The OIC seized the Ganja and Opium and prepared seizure list in respect thereof in the house of the accused. P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 put their signatures on the said seizure list. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to the accused. P.W. 3 is a constable. He has corroborated the statement of P.W. 2 about the search. P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 put their signatures on the said seizure list. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to the accused. P.W. 3 is a constable. He has corroborated the statement of P.W. 2 about the search. However, he has stated that he along with other police constables remained outside the house and police officers along with independent witnesses and P.W. 2 went inside the house of the accused. P.W. 4, who is the driver of the police jeep, has stated in the like manner. He has further stated that after the search, they returned with the seized Ganja and Opium to the police station. P.W. 5 is another independent witness who turned hostile. P.W. 6, at the relevant time, was the OIC, Soro P.S. He has stated in his deposition that after receipt of reliable information he entered the said fact in the station diary and intimated the Superintendent of Police, Balasore about this fact over VHF, made requisition to the Tahasildar, Soro to remain present at the time of raid and went to the village of the accused in a police jeep along with P.W. 2-Additional Tahasildar, Inspector of PoliceNarayan Panda, Sub-Inspector of Police Subrat Kumar Behera, Woman constable Sukanti Das and APR force. He corroborated the statement of P.W. 2, the Tahasildar. He further stated that he collected two samples of 50 Grams each from the Ganja and two samples of 25 Grams each from the Opium. He packed the sample Ganja in two packets and sample Opium in two packets separately. He also sealed both the Ganja and Opium packets. He also seized the weighing balance and six weighing units which were used by the accused for weighment of Ganja and Opium and prepared seizure list for the same. The seal was handed over in the zima of Purna Chandra Mohapatra, who executed a zimanama in token of the same. Thereafter, he drew up plain paper FIR marked as Ext. 11 and registered the FIR through S.I-D. Nayak. P.W. 7 is the I.O., who investigated into the matter and submitted final form under Sections 18 and 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He was present at the time of seizure and drawal of sample. 9. Thereafter, he drew up plain paper FIR marked as Ext. 11 and registered the FIR through S.I-D. Nayak. P.W. 7 is the I.O., who investigated into the matter and submitted final form under Sections 18 and 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He was present at the time of seizure and drawal of sample. 9. In the instant case, P.W. 6, the O.I.C., had reason to believe that a search warrant and authorization cannot be obtained because of lack of time. After recording his subjective satisfaction in the station diary vide S.D. No. 623, he immediately intimated the fact to the higher officer and proceeded to the spot along with the officers and Magistrate. Personal search was made in presence of the Gazetted Officer, i.e., the Additional Tahasildar, P.W. 2. The accused himself also made a search of the raiding party. Therefore, there is compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. There is also nothing to show that the accused has in any way been prejudiced. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Counsel for the Appellant has no force. 10. As it appears from the Amin report (Ext.13), the house in question belongs to the accused. The charge-sheet coupled with Ext. 13, the Amin report, clearly establishes that the accused is an inhabitant of Revenue Mouza Ghodasahi, and his house is situated in Rai Pitamber hamlet. Therefore, there is no dispute that the accused was the owner of the house wherefrom the contraband articles were seized. Therefore, his conscious possession of such contraband articles cannot be doubted. 11. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted him for having committed the offence under Sections 20(b) (i) and Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, taking into account an overall view of the matter, particularly the age of the Appellant and the fact that he is languishing in custody from the date of his arrest, the substantive sentence imposed by the trial for commission of offence u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is reduced from 10 years R.I. to 8 years R.I. The sentence of fine as well as the default sentence shall remain undisturbed. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court in the context of the offence u/s 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is confirmed. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to modification of sentence to the extent indicated. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed