JUDGMENT Mohinder Pal, J.:- Jaswant Singh (appellant) has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 26.4.2004 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Patiala, whereby he was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay Rs.1 lac as fine, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 16.12.2001, Sub Inspector Hans Raj of C.I.A Staff, Samana, along with other police personnel, was present at the bridge of river Ghaggar in the revenue limits of Village Rasauli in connection with the checking of bad elements and patrol duty. Mohinder Singh, an independent witness, came there and was joined in the police party. In the meanwhile, Maruti Car of red colour bearing registration No.HR-29-D-3432 came there from the side of Village Chicharwal. A signal was given to the Driver of the Car with the help of torch to stop the vehicle. Upon this, the appellant, who was driving the car, stopped the car and tried to run away. The appellant was, however, apprehended by the police. The car was found to contain bags which were loaded in its Dickey. Sub Inspector Hans Raj told appellant Jaswant Singh that he suspected some intoxicating material in the bags and that search of the same was to be made. 3. Sub Inspector Hans Raj apprised the accused-appellant of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. The accused opted that search of the bags be made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Deputy Superintendent of Police Satvir Singh was summoned at the spot by the Investigating Officer. On reaching the spot, Deputy Superintendent of Police Satvir Singh disclosed his identity to the accused. Search of the bags was conducted in his presence. Upon search, poppy husk was recovered from the bags, which were five in number. Two Samples of 250 grams each were separated from each bag containing poppy husk. The samples and the remaining poppy husk contained in five bags were separately sealed and taken into possession by the police. Each bag was found to contain 30 Kgs of poppy husk, including the samples. Two Samples of 250 grams each were separated from each bag containing poppy husk. The samples and the remaining poppy husk contained in five bags were separately sealed and taken into possession by the police. Each bag was found to contain 30 Kgs of poppy husk, including the samples. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal F.I.R was registered against the accused under Section 15 of the Act. After registration of the case against the accused, he was formally arrested and memo containing grounds of his arrest was prepared. 4. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, vide which the contents of the sample parcels were opined to be of ‘Churra poppy husk’, and completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was put in Court. 5. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined Head Constable Gurmeet Singh (P.W.1), Inspector Tarun Rattan (P.W.2), Assistant Sub Inspector Daulat Ram (P.W.3), Head Constable Sarwan Singh (P.W.4) and Sub Inspector Hans Raj (P.W.5). 7. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-appellant Jaswant Singh denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He further stated that he had been involved in this case at the instance of Assistant Sub Inspector Daulat Ram, whom he refused to oblige by giving his car. Constable Kuldip Singh was examined by the accused in his defence as D.W.1. 8. The Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that five bags, each containing 30 Kgs of poppy husk were recovered from the accused. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as mentioned above. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 10. The facts of this case, as mentioned above, disclose that there is no doubt about the fact that the accused-appellant was in conscious possession of the quantity of poppy husk recovered from his possession. 11. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 10. The facts of this case, as mentioned above, disclose that there is no doubt about the fact that the accused-appellant was in conscious possession of the quantity of poppy husk recovered from his possession. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case of the prosecution is based only on the statements of the official witnesses and the only independent person, namely, Mohinder Singh was not examined by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the police witnesses being interested in the success of the case, their statements should not be trusted without corroboration from an independent source. It has been submitted that non-examination of the independent witness, namely, Mohinder Singh , has upset the balance of the prosecution case, making the alleged recovery doubtful. 12. After giving a careful thought to the argument raised by the learned counsel, I do not find any force therein in the presence of cogent and trustworthy evidence put forth by the prosecution. It is a matter of common knowledge that the independent witnesses, normally, do not support the prosecution case as they reside in the same area where the accused-persons reside and they fear to create ill-will and enmity with criminals. In this case, the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and no material contradiction, worth the name, has been pointed out in their statements. The recovery in this case was made per chance. Merely the fact that the independent witness Mohinder Singh was not examined in this case, is not a sufficient ground to discard the testimonies of the official witnesses. It is well-settled that the prosecution story cannot be discarded on the ground that independent witness has not been examined. To cap it all, the fact of recovery of five bags of poppy husk, each containing 30 kilograms of poppy husk, from the accused, which cannot be planted by the police, weighs with the argument raised by the learned counsel with regard to the non-examination of any independent witness. 13. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case Deputy Superintendent of Police Satvir Singh, in whose supervision the recovery was allegedly effected has not been examined by the prosecution and it makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 13. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case Deputy Superintendent of Police Satvir Singh, in whose supervision the recovery was allegedly effected has not been examined by the prosecution and it makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. He further argued that nonexamination of Deputy Superintendent of Police Satvir Singh, shows that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with in this case at the time of recovery of contraband from the accused-appellant and it renders the prosecution version doubtful. 14. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel, a reference to the relevant provisions of Section 50 of the Act is necessary, which are as under:- “50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. - (1)When any officer duly authorized under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Sector 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1) (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx (6) xx xx xx (7) xx xx xx” 15. A perusal of the above provisions of Section 50 (1) of the Act reveals that incorporation of the words “when any officer duly authorized under Section 42 is about to search any person” therein depicts that only when personal search of any person is required to be made, the Police Officer concerned is required to apprise him of his right existing under this Section i.e as to whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate. Such a requirement is not there when the Police Officer concerned is going to search houses, building etc. Such a requirement is not there when the Police Officer concerned is going to search houses, building etc. Such a view was taken by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Kulwant Singh, 1994 (1) Recent CR 303 wherein in para 46 at page 317, it was observed as under:- “ xx xx xx. The provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 50 were enacted by the Legislature in its wisdom only qua the personal search of a person and not regarding the search of houses, building etc. obviously to preserve the human dignity. There is logic behind enacting the special provisions regarding the personal search, because a person can carry only a small quantity of contraband narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Thus, in order to rule out the possibility of planting small quantity of such drugs at the instance of unscrupulous officers of the enforcing agency and to eliminate the chances of exploitation, the above-referred substantive right has been conferred upon the suspected person. A conjunct reading of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act leaves no doubt that the Legislature did not intend to confer a distinct right upon the suspect to claim personal search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and prove his innocence in recognition of the right to human dignity and free from exploitation flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. “ 16. There was, thus, no violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, as argued by learned counsel for the accused-appellant. In this view of the matter, as the recovery of five bags of poppy husk in this case, obviously, was not to be effected as a result of personal search of the accused, it is of no consequence whether the search of the bags kept in the Maruti Car was made before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate or not. Non-examination of Deputy Superintendent of Police Satvir Singh, under the circumstances, does not in any way affect the truthfulness of the prosecution version. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. ---------------