JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Jugraj filed this appeal against the judgment dated September 4, 2002 of Special Judge Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2000 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under section under section 15 (c) of NDPS Act for 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000 in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 8, 2000, SHO Pisangan received information at 2.00 from an informant that Jugraj son of Phool Chand Tated resident of Govindgarh, at his residence Govindgarh is doing the business of Poppy Capsule and large quantity of it is available with him. He stated that if immediately his house is searched Poppy Capsule can be recovered from him. Finding this information to be true, report about this was prepared and sent to the Superintendent of Police with constable Vishnuprasad. Thereafter SHO in a jeep reached Govindgarh Bus Stand. At Gopvindgarh Bus Stand Mahaveer Singh was asked to arrange two witnesses. On this Mahaveer Singh brought two Panchayat Members Jagpal Singh and Noratmal, for becoming witnesses. The witnesses were informed about the information received from the informant and they were taken to Tated Mohalla at the residence of Jugraj and reached there at 3.00 p.m. Jugraj house was opening towards North. One person came out from his house and on asking him he stated his name to be Jugraj son of Phoolchand by Caste Tated Mahajan aged 72 years. Jugraj was informed about the information received from informant and in presence of both the witnesses notice under section 50 of NDPS Act was given to him. On this Jugraj stated to be searched by the SHO himself. Upto 3.30 p.m. SHO waited for higher police officials as information was already tendered to them. At 3.30 Lokesh Sonwal, Dy. superintendent of Police reached there. In his presence and in presence of witnesses and Jugraj owner of the house, his house was searched. In third number room and on west side inside room Three Gunny bags of Poppy Capsule were recovered. The witnesses were shown these three Gunny bags. Jugraj was asked to produce licence of keeping this huge quantity of Capsule of Poppy over which he stated that he is not having any licence. In third number room and on west side inside room Three Gunny bags of Poppy Capsule were recovered. The witnesses were shown these three Gunny bags. Jugraj was asked to produce licence of keeping this huge quantity of Capsule of Poppy over which he stated that he is not having any licence. All the three Gunny Bags containing Capsule of Poppy were taken to the Flour Mill of Kalukhan where the same were weighed and one Gunny bag was found to be 30 Kgs. Second one was weighing to be 20 Kgs and third one was 18 Kgs. From these Gunny bags 100 gms two Sampels from each in total 6 packets were taken and Bags were sealed. For sending to FSL the packets were marked as ABC. For keeping material in Malkhana marked D, E, and F. One Gunny bag was mark A -1 and others were marked B 1 and C 1. Accused was arrestred. The accused and the sealed material were taken to the police station at 5.45 p.m. and FIR was registered. Report about all these were given to the Superintendent of Police. Seized material was deposited in Malkhana. Further investigation was handed over to Addl. Superintendent of Police Mangliawas, who prepared the site map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The seized material was sent to the FSL. and challan was filed before the Court on June 3, 2000.The trial court framed charge against the accused appellant on August 2, 2000 for offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Accused denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried. 9 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case and 18 documents were exhibited. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after hearing the arguments the accused was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated September 4, 2002 as mentioned above. 3. Mr. S.L.Songara and Mr. V.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant placing reliance on Dharampal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2006(3) R.Cr.D. 167 (Raj.) stated that the accused appellant, who is aged about 80 years and remained in imprisonment for more than 7 years be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 3. Mr. S.L.Songara and Mr. V.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant placing reliance on Dharampal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2006(3) R.Cr.D. 167 (Raj.) stated that the accused appellant, who is aged about 80 years and remained in imprisonment for more than 7 years be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The learned counsel argued that the compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act have not been made, which are mandatory in character and thus the accused appellant is entitled to be released for the period already undergone by him. In the cited case the accused were sentenced to six years and five years imprisonment respectively and they served more than 3 years sentence they have been released for the period already undergone by them as meager quantity of opium was recovered from them. The independent witnesses produced by the police were declared hostile. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that huge quantity of Capsule of Poppy Narcotic Substance was recovered from the accused appellant. The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that the empowered officer, if has a prior information given by any person, he should necessarily take it down in writing and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief.The proviso to sub-section (1) lays down that if the empowered officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, at any time between sunset and sunrise, after recording the grounds of his belief. Vide sub-section (2) of Section 42, the empowered officer who takes down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the proviso to sub-section (1), shall forthwith send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior. Section 50 of the Act prescribes the conditions under which search of a person shall be conducted. Sub-section (1) provides that when the empowered officer is about to search any suspected person, he shall, if the person to be searched so requires, take him to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for the purpose. Under sub-section (2) it is laid down that if such request is made by the suspected person, the officer who is to take the search, may detain the suspect until he can be brought before such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Sub-section (3) lays down that when the person to be searched is brought beforesuch a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate finds that there are no reasonable grounds for search, he shall forthwith discharge the person to be searched, otherwise he shall direct that the search be made. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted. Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act lays down that no female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act lays down that no female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. This provision is similar to the one contained in Section 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Section 51(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search of females. Section 51(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that whenever it is necessary to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency. The empowered officer must, therefore, act in the manner provided by Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act read with Section 51(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whenever it is found necessary to cause a female to be searched. The document prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot must invariably disclose that the search was conducted in the aforesaid manner and the name of the female official who carried out the personal search of the concerned female should also be disclosed. The personal search memo of the female concerned should indicate compliance with the aforesaid provisions. Failure to do so may not only affect thecredibility of the prosecution case but may also be found as violative of the basic right of a female to be treated with decency and proper dignity. The provisions of Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act and are applicable for affecting search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act also. However, when an empowered officer carrying on the investigation including search, seizure or arrest under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drugs or the psychotropic substance, then he must follow from that stage onwards the provisions of the NDPS Act and continue the investigation as provided thereunder. If the investigating officer is not an empowered officer then it is expected of him that he must inform the empowered officer under the NDPS Act, who should thereafter proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If the investigating officer is not an empowered officer then it is expected of him that he must inform the empowered officer under the NDPS Act, who should thereafter proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Apex Court in Balbir Singhs case (1998 ) 2 SCC 724 after referring to a number of judgments, opined that failure to comply with the provisions of Cr.P.C. in respect of search and seizure and particularly those of Sections 100, 102, 103 and 165 per se does not vitiate the prosecution case. If there is such a violation, what the courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the accused. While appreciating the evidence and other relevant factors, the courts should bear in mind that there was such a violation and evaluate the evidence on record keeping that in view.What is the import of the expression if such person so requires he shall be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and his search shall be made before such Officer or Magistrate as occurring in Section 50. Does the expression not visualise that to enable the concerned person to require his search to be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the empowered officer is under an obligation to inform him that he has such a right ?Section 57 of the NDPS Act provides that whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior official.Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (Five Judge Bench) (1999 ) 6 SCC 172 propounded following conclusions : (1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the concerned person of his right under Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing; (2) That failure to inform the concerned person about the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused; (3) That a search made, by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that, if he so requires, he shall be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act; (4) That there is indeed need to protect society from criminals. The societal intent in safety will suffer if persons who commit crimes are let off because the evidence against them is to be treated as if it does not exist. The answer, therefore, is that the investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the concerned official so that the laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed. In every case the end result is important but the means to achieve it must remain above board. The remedy cannot be worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy of judicial process may come under cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice. That cannot be permitted. An accused is entitled to a fair trial. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice. The use of evidence collected in breach of the safeguards 50 have by Section 50 at the trial, would render the trial unfair. (5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the Court on the basis of evidence led at the trial. The use of evidence collected in breach of the safeguards 50 have by Section 50 at the trial, would render the trial unfair. (5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the Court on the basis of evidence led at the trial. Finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish, at the trial, that the provisions of Section 50, and particularly the safeguards provided therein were duly complied with, it would not be permissible to cut- short a criminal trial; (6) That in the context in which the protection has been incorporated in Section 50 for the benefit of the person intended to be searched, we do not express any opinion whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, but, hold that failure to inform the concerned person of his right as emanating from Sub-section (1) of Section 50, may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in law; (7) That an illicit article seized from the person of an accused during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot be used as evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused though any other material recovered during that search may be relied upon by the prosecution, in other proceedings, against an accused, notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal search; (8) A presumption under Section 54 of the Act can only be raised after the prosecution has established that the accused was found to be in possession of the contraband in a search conducted in accordance with the mandate of Section 50. An illegal search cannot entitle the prosecution to raise a presumption under Section 54 of the Act (9) That the judgment in Pooran Mal's case cannot be understood to have laid down that an illicit article seized during a search of a person, on prior information, conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, can by itself be used as evidence of unlawful possession of the illicit article on the person from whom the contraband has been seized during the illegal search; (10) That the judgment in Ali Mustaffa's case correctly interprets and distinguishes the judgment in Pooran Mal's case and the broad observations made in Pirthi Chand's case and Jasbir Singh's case are not in tune with the correct exposition of law as laid down in Pooran Mal's case. The above conclusions are not a summary of our judgment and have to be read and considered in the light of the entire discussion contained in the earlier part. 7. On the basis of the above conclusions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to have a look at the evidence adduced and documents exhibited before the trial court by the prosecution.PW.1 Mahaveer Singh stated that on 8.5.2000 he was Head Mohrir Malkhana Incharge. On that day Three Gunny Bags sealed and samples of six packets in sealed conditions were given to him for deposit in Malkhana. He entered the same in Malkhana register which is Ex. P.1 over which entries are contained from place A to B. On 11.5.2000 he handed over sealed packets to Constable Madanlal for delivery of same to the FSL. On 14.5.2000 the sealed packets were received by the FSL for which receipt was issued and entries for it were made in Ex. P.1 at place C to D. Copy of it is Ex. P 1 A.PW.2 Kalyanmal, who is Assistant Secretary in Govindgarh Panchayat Samiti stated that he knows Jugraj and Ex.P.2 is attested copy of Patta of house of Jugraj which was issued to him.PW.3 Jagpal Singh was declared hostile. But he admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex. P.3 at place A to B. He also admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 arrest memo at place A to B.PW.4 Noratmal was declared hostile. But he admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex. P.3 at place C to D. He also admitted his signature on Ex. But he admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex. P.3 at place A to B. He also admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 arrest memo at place A to B.PW.4 Noratmal was declared hostile. But he admitted his signature on seizure memo Ex. P.3 at place C to D. He also admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 arrest memo at place C to D.PW.5 Jaypal Singh stated that on May 8, 2000, he was SHO Pisangan and on that day he received information at 2.00 from an informant that Jugraj son of Phool Chand Tated resident of Govindgarh, at his residence Govindgarh doing the business of selling of Poppy Capsule and large quantity of it is available with him. Finding this information to be true, report about this was prepared and sent to the Superintendent of Police under section 42 of NDPS Act vide Ex.P.7, where he put his signature A to B with constable Vishnuprasad. Additional SP was also informed over telephone. Thereafter SHO in a jeep reached Govindgarh Bus Stand. At Gopvindgarh Bus Stand Mahaveer Singh was asked to arrange two witnesses. On this Mahaveer Singh brought two Panchayat Members Jagpal Singh and Noratmal. The witnesses were informed about the information received from the informant and they were taken to Tated Mohalla at the residence of Jugraj and reached there at 3.00 p.m. Jugraj house was opening towards North. One person came out from the house and on asking him he stated his name to be Jugraj son of Phoolchand by Caste Tated Mahajan aged 72 years. Jugraj was informed about the information received from informant and in presence of both the witnesses notice under section 50 of NDPS Act Ex.P.8 was given to him. He was informed about his right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate. On this Jugraj stated to be searched by the SHO himself. Consent of Jugraj was written on Ex. P.9 over which he signed at place A to B and E to F is signature of Norat and G to H is signature of Jagpal.At 3.30 p.m. Lokesh Sonwal, Dy. superintendent of Police reached at Govindgarh. In his presence and in presence of witnesses, House of Jugraj was searched. In third number room, on west side inside room one Big Gunny bag and two Gunny bags of Capsule Poppy were recovered. superintendent of Police reached at Govindgarh. In his presence and in presence of witnesses, House of Jugraj was searched. In third number room, on west side inside room one Big Gunny bag and two Gunny bags of Capsule Poppy were recovered. The witnesses were shown these three Gunny bags. Jugraj was asked to produce licence of keeping this huge quantity of Capsule of Poppy over which he stated that he is not having any licence. Three Gunny Bags containing Capsule of Poppy were taken to the Flour Mill of Kalukhan where the same were weighed and one Gunny bag was found to be 30 Kgs., and other two Gunny bags were found to be of 20 Kgs and 18 Kgs. From Big Gunny bag and from two short Gunny Bags 100 each gm. Sampels in total 6 packets were taken and Bags were sealed. For sending to FSL the packets were marked as ABC. For keeping material in Malkhana marked D, E, and F. Big Gunny bag was marked A -1 and other two Gunny Bags were marked B 1 and C 1. Accused was arrested. The accused and the sealed material were taken to the police station at 5.45 p.m. and FIR was registered. Report about all these were given to the Superintendent of Police vide Ex. P.12 where he put his signature A to B. For ownership of house of Jugraj Ex.P.2 Patta was obtained where he put his signature A to B. Seized material was sent to FSL and receipt of FSL is Ex. P.13. For sending material to FSL, SP gave forwarding letter Ex. P.14. The investigation was handed over to Devisingh SI, SHO Mangliawas and thereafter file was received by him. Memo of sample seal was prepared which was given to witnesses which is Ex. P.15 and where he put his signature A to B. and at place X the sample seal was affixed.PW.6 Kalukhan was declared hostile. He only stated that his son stated that some police personnel came at his Flour Mill and got some articles weighed.PW.7 Inderkumar stated that he is residing in the vicinity where Jugaraj was residing. His house is situated in North side.PW.8 Devi Singh stated that on 8.5.2000 he was posted as SHO Mangliyawas. He was informed over telephone for further investigation in the NDPS Case . On this he took statements of witnesses . His house is situated in North side.PW.8 Devi Singh stated that on 8.5.2000 he was posted as SHO Mangliyawas. He was informed over telephone for further investigation in the NDPS Case . On this he took statements of witnesses . On 9.5.2000 he prepared the map of place of incident. In village Govindgarh site map of house of Jugraj was prepared, which is Ex. P.17 where he put his signature A to B. He received the report of FSL Ex. P.18.PW.9 Madana Lal stated that on 11.5.2000 he received three packets from Mahaveer Singh for handing over to FSL. He first prepared letter from SP office and thereafter handed over the sealed packets to the FSL at Jaipur . On 12.5.2000 he deposited the packets in FSL and got receipt Ex. P.13 from the FSL.In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused stated that he is innocent.The documents produced by the prosecution may also be looked into.Ex.P.1 is copy of malkhana register of entries No.231 dated 8.5.2000 regarding deposit of sealed material with sealed packets in malkhana. Ex. P.2 true copy of Patta issued by the Panchayat Samiti in relation to house of Jugraj. Ex.P.3 is search memo of house of Jugraj recovering Capsule of Poppy in three Gunny bags. Ex. P.4 arrest memo of accused Jugram. Ex. P.5 statement of Jagpal Singh under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.6 statement of Nortmal under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.7 information under section 42 NDPS Act. Ex.P.8 notice under section 50 NDPS Act given to accused . Ex.P.9 Consent of accused under section 50 NDPS Act to be searched by SHO himself. Ex.P.10 copy of Rojnamcha Aaam dated 8.5.2000. Ex.P.11 FIR. Ex.P.12 report under section 57 NDPS Act sent to higher police officials dated 9.5.2000. Ex.P.13 receipt of FSL. Ex.P.14 forwarding letter of SP for sending packets to FSL. Ex.P.15 sample seal. Ex.P.16 statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Of Kalukhan. Ex.P.17 map of place of incident. Ex. P.18 report of FSL. 8. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused appellant remained in jail for the last more than 7 years in jail and he be released for the period already undergone by him. Ex.P.16 statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Of Kalukhan. Ex.P.17 map of place of incident. Ex. P.18 report of FSL. 8. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused appellant remained in jail for the last more than 7 years in jail and he be released for the period already undergone by him. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the trial court is based on (i) the mandatory provisions of sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act have been complied with and the prosecution tried its level best to get the corroboration of the independent witnesses. The independent witnesses admitted their signatures on Ex.P.4 and Ex. P.5 but have been declared hostile. The trial court on the basis of the evidence of police personnel and the chain of circumstances as proved in the instant matter rightly convicted the accused appellant.PW.5 Jagpal Singh main witness stated that on 8.5.2000 information was received by him from an informant that Jugraj resident of Govindgarh is having contrabad at his residence and he is doing the business of contraband. This information Ex. P.7 under section 42 of the NDPS Act was sent by him to the Superintendent of Police through Vishnuprasad Constable. This information was recorded by him in the Rojnamcha Ex. P.10. He also informed Addl. S.P. over telephone. Constables Mahaveer and Ramesh were taken by him to Govindgarh and at Govindgarh Mahaveer was asked to bring two independent witnesses. Mahaveer arranged two independent witnesses Jagpal Singh and Noratmal. Both the witnesses were informed about the information received from informant that Jugraj is having contraband at his residence. When they reached near the residence of Jugraj, one person came out from his residence and immediately they asked his name and he disclosed his name to be Jugraj. Jugraj was given notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act and it was informed to him that he has a right to be searched by Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer over which he replied that he is ready to be searched by the SHO himself. Notice of 50 NDPS Act is Ex. P.8 where C to D is signature of accused . His consent was obtained on Ex. P.9 where he put his signature C to D. At 3.30 Dy. Notice of 50 NDPS Act is Ex. P.8 where C to D is signature of accused . His consent was obtained on Ex. P.9 where he put his signature C to D. At 3.30 Dy. S.P. Lokesh Sonwalcame and in his presence house was searched inside house Three Gunny Bags full with Capsule of Poppy were found and all the bags were weighed at Kalukhan's Flour Mill. Weight of one bag was 30 Kg., second was 20 Kgs. and third one was 18 Kgs. Total 68 kgs. Jugraj was asked to produce licence for keeping this contraband over which he replied that he is not having any licence. Out of the three Gunny Bags six packets 100 gms. each were prepared. Sealed material and sealed packets along with accused were taken to the Police Station and FIR was lodged. Thereafter information under section 57 NDPS Act was sent to the higher police officials. Thus it is clear that the prosecution has been able to prove that the huge contraband Capsule Poppy was recovered from the residence of Jugraj and for which he was not having any licence. The trial court on the basis of the evidence produced in the case found proved the charge of section 15 of the NDPS Act against the accused appellant proved and he has been rightly sentenced for contravention of the provisions of NDPS Act. Since in the instant case independent witnesses have been declared hostile though they have admitted their signatures on the respective memos prepared by the police, it is necessary to have a look at the proposition whether the evidence of police officials can be accepted to convict the accused appellant in absence of independent evidence.The Apex Court in Sukhpal v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 10 , in para No.4 held as under : 4.After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties it appears to us that in the instant case, the prosecution has examined the witnesses to establish that the accused had been apprehended with a rifle of 315 bore and 109 live cartridges of such rifle. It is an admitted position that the accused had no licence or permit to possess the said rifle and cartridges at the relevant time. It is an admitted position that the accused had no licence or permit to possess the said rifle and cartridges at the relevant time. It is also an admitted position that the TADA Act was applicable in the area where the accused was apprehended. Accordingly, all the three ingredients as indicated in the said Constitution Bench decision, have been fulfilled in the instant case. Normally, the presence of PW 5 and PW 6 in the police chowki was not expected at that hour but PW 5 and PW 6 have given a reasonable explanation as to why they had come to the police chowki on that day and why they had waited there. We do not find any valid reason to discard the evidences adduced in the case by PW 5 and PW 6. Apart from that, the police personnel have also deposed and such depositions stand fully corroborated by the evidences of PW 5 and PW 6 and by the recovery of the rifle and cartridges. It may be indicated here that as a rule of prudence, corroboration preferably by a reliable witness is desirable. But in all cases, such corroboration cannot be insisted as a matter of course because it may not be possible in all cases to get corroboration from an independent witness. In our view, the learned counsel for the State is justified in her contention that in the instant case, firing capability of the said rifle has been found by an expert, namely, an armourer who has a special training in the subject. It is not absolutely necessary to make a test- firing for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not a rifle is capable of firing. We are, therefore, not inclined to hold that the firing capability of the said rifle has not been established in the instant case. It also appears to us that the accused was charged under Section 5 of the TADA Act but he has not given any explanation as to why and for what purpose he had possessed the said rifle and the said cartridges. Even when opportunity under Section 313 CrPC was given to the accused, no statement has been made as to why the said arms and ammunition had been kept by him at the time of his apprehension. Even when opportunity under Section 313 CrPC was given to the accused, no statement has been made as to why the said arms and ammunition had been kept by him at the time of his apprehension. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused had sufficient opportunity to explain the purpose of possession of the said arms and ammunition and to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 5 of the TADA Act but he has failed and neglected to give any explanation or evidence which may be even remotely construed as an evidence by way of rebuttal. In the above case the Apex Court held that as a rule of prudence it is desirable that the evidence of police personnel should be corroborated preferably by a reliable witness. But in all cases, such corroboration cannot be insisted as a matter of course because it may not be possible in all cases to get corroboration from an independent witness.The Apex Court in Brijpal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1996) 2 SCC 676 in para 4 held as under : 4. We have looked into the depositions given in this case and the judgment given by the learned Designated Judge. It appears that the prosecution case has been established by cogent evidences given by the witnesses which are not inconsistent or contradictory. In our view, learned Designated Court has rightly held that since only the police personnel had been examined in this case, their depositions are not liable to be discarded, particularly when it is the specific case of the prosecution that they tried to procure independent witnesses from the public, but they failed in their attempt to get which independent witnesses. In the instant case, it has been established from the evidence that the pistol and cartridges were seized from the person of the appellant and after getting them properly sealed they were deposited in the Police Mal Khana, in sealed condition. The Incharge of the Mal Khana has deposed that such weapons remained intact and in sealed condition until the same were sent for being tested by the expert. The Incharge of the Mal Khana has deposed that such weapons remained intact and in sealed condition until the same were sent for being tested by the expert. So far as the question of examining of the said pistol by the expert is concerned, it appears from the depositions of the said expert that he had obtained certificate of technical competency and armour technical course from Bhopal and he had also long experience of inspection, examination and testing of the fire arms and ammunition. In our view, the said police personnel should be held to be expert in arms. The decision relied upon by Mr. Singh in Abdula Pochamma v. State of A.P. (1989 Supp. (2) SCC 152) in this connection is clearly distinguishable in the facts of this case. In the case of Abdula it was alleged by the prosecution that a grenade was recovered from the accused but whether the substance recovered was a grenade or not had not been examined by a proper expert and the court gave benefit of doubt by not placing implicity reliance on the testimony of an ASI that the object was a grenade. In the instant case, we have already indicated that the armorer as a matter of fact, had also fired one of the cartridges from the seized pistol which was recovered from the possession of the accused . In Brijpal v. State (Delhi Administration) , the Apex Court held that since only the police personnel had been examined in this case, their depositions are not liable to be discarded, particularly when it is the specific case of the prosecution that they tried to procure independent witnesses but they have been declared hostile admitting their signatures on the respective memos prepared by the prosecution. Even they have refused to given any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police. I have critically examined the evidence produced by the prosecution and the statements given by the independent witnesses. The statement of police personnel is trustworthy coupled with the statement of independent witnesses though they have been declared hostile. In my view the trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant and huge quantity of contrabad was recovered from his house and the prosecution has been able to place on record the Patta issued by the Panchayat Samiti regarding ownership of the accused appellant from which the contraband was recovered. In my view the trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant and huge quantity of contrabad was recovered from his house and the prosecution has been able to place on record the Patta issued by the Panchayat Samiti regarding ownership of the accused appellant from which the contraband was recovered. In these circumstances there is no perversity in the judgment of the trial court.The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant is not applicable in the instant case. In the instant case huge quantity of Capsule of Poppy were recovered from his own residence and no leniency in such matter can be given to the accused appellant. Similarly on micro chemical examination, the sample contained in each of the packet marked A, B and C gave positive tests for the presence of chief constitutents of opium hence the samples are of dried crushed capsule of opium poppy from which juice has been extracted. Thus the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for violation of the provisions of sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The findings recorded by the trial court are not perverse in any manner.The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed. 9. For the foregoing reasons the appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. The appellant who is in jail shall serve out the remaining sentence as ordered by the trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******