Judgment By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29.4.2009 passed by Special Judge, NDPS, Court, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.14/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation and trial, has been ordered to be set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P.C. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is as under;- On 5.2.2008 at about 4.00p.m, PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station at Panaji received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach near Martin's Beach Corner between 5.45p.m to 6.15 pm on the same day to deliver Narcotic drugs i.e Charas to prospective customers. He recorded the information in writing and sent a copy of the same to Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.N.C. for information along with forwarding letter. Thereafter, he along with raiding party including PW7 PSI Punaji Gawas and panchas went to the spot in a jeep. The vehicle in which they had gone, was parked in a lane about 100 mts. away from Martin's Beach Corner. Thereafter, raiding party concealed themselves in two groups near the path way leading to Martin's Beach Corner from the beach in the bushes existing therein. At about 5.55 p.m they saw one male person coming towards Caranzalem from Miramar side. The person was apprehended. PW8 disclosed his identity as well as identity of the raiding party including pancha witnesses to the said person. PW8 asked the said person about his name and identity. He disclosed his name as Thagendra Budhamager (the accused), resident of Nepal. Before conducting search, the accused was informed that he has right to be searched in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, however he declined the offer. He was also informed that he has a right to search the members of raiding party including pancha witnesses, which he declined. The accused was carrying a shoulder bag of blue colour having brown colour at the base. He was also informed that he has a right to search the members of raiding party including pancha witnesses, which he declined. The accused was carrying a shoulder bag of blue colour having brown colour at the base. The same was searched and in the said bag, 18 rectangular slabs of black coloured substance enclosed in transparent auto pressed polythene, were found. PW8 after minutely observing and smelling the same, came to the conclusion that the packets contained charas. All the 18 packets were weighed and found to be weighing 1 kg 815gms. The bag was packed in a white cloth, tied with jute thread and sealed with the seal carried by PW8, at seven places. Label was also pasted on the said cloth packet. Upon personal search of the accused, Rs.600/-were found in the denominations of Rs.500/-and Rs.100/-each. The same was put in an envelope which was sealed and signed by the panchas. Seizure memo was drawn and signed by panchas and PW8, and copy of the same was handed over to the accused. Again offer of search of raiding party was made to the accused which he declined. Panchanamawas also drawn on the spot and copy of the same was given to the accused under acknowledgment. Thereafter, a letter was prepared to the Director of Foods and Drugs Administration, Panaji to conduct the analysis of substance. The said letter was typed by P.C. Narayan Morajkar. PW8 wrote letter to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell regarding handing over the seal for his safe custody. The seal impression was affixed on the said letter. The seal and the letter were sent to Shri Govekar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell in his office through PSI Gawas. PW7 PSI Gawas left the spot on private motorcycle carrying the seal and letter to hand over to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell. Thereafter, PW8 P.I, Suraj Halarnkar, along with accused and other members of raiding party, came back to the police station and handed over the muddemal articles to lady Head Constable Ashwini Dessai along with note. Thereafter, PW8 lodged report against the accused bearing crime no. 6/2008. On 6.2.2008, PW6 Lady Head Constable Ashwini Dessai forwarded contraband for analysis to the Director, FDA, Panaji through P.C. Hari Naik of Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station. PW8 submitted arrest card of the accused to S.D.M., Panaji. Thereafter, PW8 lodged report against the accused bearing crime no. 6/2008. On 6.2.2008, PW6 Lady Head Constable Ashwini Dessai forwarded contraband for analysis to the Director, FDA, Panaji through P.C. Hari Naik of Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station. PW8 submitted arrest card of the accused to S.D.M., Panaji. He also submitted intimation under Section 57 of the Act to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station on 5.2.2008 itself. Thereafter, with the assistance of Engineer, PWD, sketch of scene of offence was drawn. On 8.5.2008, PW8 was transferred. As such, he handed over investigation to PI Shirodkar. After report of Chemical analysis was received, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge against accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Act. 3. Charge under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Act was explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove the charge against the accused. The defence of the accused was of bare denial and false implication. 5. The learned Special Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, held that the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act was made out against the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 6. Ms. Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the mandatory provisions of the Act have not been complied with and, therefore, the conviction of the accused, is unsustainable in law. According to learned Counsel, Sections 50, 52, 55 and Section 57 of the Act have not been complied with by the prosecution and, as such, the conviction recorded by the Special Judge, is unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the contraband was handed over to PW6 Ashwini Dessai, Lady Head Constable, who had no authority to receive the contraband in terms of the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the pancha examined by the prosecution, was not independent and in any case, there are contradictions and variations in the testimony of the pancha PW4 Luis Cabral and two police officers PW7 and PW8. Learned Counsel further submitted that the pancha examined by the prosecution, was not independent and in any case, there are contradictions and variations in the testimony of the pancha PW4 Luis Cabral and two police officers PW7 and PW8. Learned Counsel further submitted that the contraband was not in the safe custody during the intervening period of 5.2.2008 to 6.2.2008 when the same was dispatched for analysis and there is every possibility of tampering with the contraband allegedly seized during the raid. According to learned Counsel, evidence of PW4 does not establish the spot from which the accused was apprehended and, as such, serious doubt is created about the raid conducted by the prosecution in which prosecution claims to have seized Charas from the accused. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and, as such, the accused is liable to be acquitted for the offence for which he was charged. Ms. Dessai placed reliance upon the following Judgments:- i. State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299 . ii. Mohinder Kumar Vs. The State, Panaji Goa, (1998) 8 SCC 655 . 7. Per Contra, Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Rivonkar submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution is cogent and clinching and the evidence of the pancha PW4 Luis Cabral is substantially corroborated by PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar and PW7 PSI Punaji Gawas who were part of raiding party. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act are not mandatory and no prejudice has been shown by the accused for non-compliance of Sections 52 and 55 of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has complied with Section 57 of the Act and as such, even if it is held that Sections 52 and 55 of the Act have not been complied with, the same by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the accused is not guilty once the prosecution is able to establish that the accused was found in possession of commercial quantity of charas. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is no substantial variation between the testimonies of PW4, PW7 and PW8 in so far as the spot from which the accused was apprehended and minor variations in the testimonies of the three witnesses would not be sufficient to create a doubt in the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Learned Public prosecutor further submitted that all the three witnesses have consistently deposed that the accused was apprehended near the path way leading to Martin's Beach Corner and the accused had come from Miramar side and therefore it cannot be said that there is total variance between the versions of three witnesses. In support of his submissions, Mr. Rivonkar placed reliance upon the following judgments:- i. M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2003) 8 SCC 449 . ii. Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2001) 3 SCC 28 . iii. Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, (2009)15 SCC 795 . iv. Mohammad Asraf Kaloo Vs. State of Goa, 2006(Supp.) Bom. C. R. 940. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 9. In order to prove that 1 kg 815 gms charas was found in the shoulder bag carried by the accused, the prosecution examined PW4 Luis Cabral who acted as a pancha witness. He deposed that he was working as UDC in Education Department and also knew other panchas who were also working in the same office. Both of them were deputed by Director (Administration) to act as witness in the raid. Both of them visited Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station, Panaji along with letter and met PI, Suraj Halarnkar. They reached police station at about 5.00p.m. PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar disclosed that they have specific information that one Nepali person would be coming around 5.45 p.m to 6.15 p.m on the path way leading to Caranzalem beach near Martin's Beach corner to deliver drugs to prospective customers. Thereafter, PI, Suraj Halarnkar, three police constables, one driver and two panchas went to the spot. PI, Suraj Halarnkar took the seal of the police station with the impression of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji Goa-7 which was shown to them at the police station. A kit box was also brought by constable and contents thereof were shown to both the panchas. PI, Suraj Halarnkar took the seal of the police station with the impression of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji Goa-7 which was shown to them at the police station. A kit box was also brought by constable and contents thereof were shown to both the panchas. They noticed one weighing scale, white cloth, jute string and packing and sealing material. The emergency lights, two folding stools, torches and one typewriter were also taken by other police constable. They reached Caranzalem beach near Martin's Beach Corner at about 5.30.p.m. Vehicle was kept in lane at a distance of about 100 metres from Martin's Beach Corner. All of them alighted from the vehicle and proceeded towards Martin's Beach Corner and except the driver all other members of the raiding party concealed their presence behind the bushes. At about 5.55.p.m they noticed one Nepali person coming towards Caranzalem beach from Miramar side. He came towards the path way and stopped. Since the description of the said person found talling with the information received earlier, signal was given by PW8, PI Suraj Halarnkar to all the raiding party members who immediately surrounded the said person. 10. PI, Suraj Halarnkar, introduced himself by showing identity card and he also introduced other members and panchas. The said person disclosed his name as Thagendra Budhamagar (the accused). He identified the accused in the Court as the said person. PI, Suraj Halarnkar went to conduct his personal search as well as search of his bag for drugs. PW8 PI-Suraj Halarnkar informed him that he had right to conduct his search in the presence of Gazetted officer or Magistrate but accused declined the offer. The accused was also given offer to search raiding party members which was also declined. In the bag carried by the accused, 18 pieces of rectangular shape in polythene packets were found. PI, Suraj Halarnkar took smell of the substance and suspected the substance to be charas. All 18 pieces were weighed on the electronic weighing scale and weight was found to be 1 kg 815gms. PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar placed all the packets in the same bag and tied the string at the mouth and the said shoulder bag was then wrapped in a cloth and tied with jute thread. One paper tag was tied to the said cloth and sealed at seven different places. He identified the said parcel at Exh.1. PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar placed all the packets in the same bag and tied the string at the mouth and the said shoulder bag was then wrapped in a cloth and tied with jute thread. One paper tag was tied to the said cloth and sealed at seven different places. He identified the said parcel at Exh.1. In the personal search of the accused an amount of Rs.600/-was found. No other material was found during the search of the accused. The amount was also seized and placed in an envelope which was packed and sealed at seven places. He identified the envelope at Exh. 2. Panchanama and the seizure memo were prepared on the spot and the copies were handed over to the accused under acknowledgment. 11. A letter addressed to Director of FDA, Panaji and another letter addressed to Dy. S.P. for handing over the seal were typed. The said seal was sent through PSI Gawas on a motorcycle. Thereafter all of them including accused came to the police station at around 9.30p.m. Witness identified his signature on Exh.1 at point “A” and that of other pancha at point “B”, as also signature of PI Suraj Halarnkar at Point “C” and that of accused no.1 at point “D”. He also identified his signature on the panchanama and the seizure report which were marked as Exh. 21 and Exh. 22 respectively. Sealed cloth of the parcel was opened and was shown to the witness Exh. 1. He identified his signature at point “C” as well as the shoulder bag of blue colour with brown bottom as well as the substance suspected to be the charas found with the accused. He also identified the envelope in which cash was put and also the cash of Rs.600/-found with the accused during the personal search. In the cross examination, he admitted that there was some correction in the order of Director and the correction was regarding date. He denied the suggestion that he had not received any order from the Director deputing him to act as a pancha. In the cross examination, he admitted that there was some correction in the order of Director and the correction was regarding date. He denied the suggestion that he had not received any order from the Director deputing him to act as a pancha. He claimed that the had received such an order at around 4.45 p.m. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not come to the said spot on that day or there was no lane by the side of Martin's Beach Corner and he did not know on which side the Martin's Beach Corner is facing since he did not enter the said premises. He further stated that said Martin's Beach Corner was of shack type and partly of permanent structure and partly of temporary structure. He further stated that the jeep was parked towards southern side i.e on the other side of the by-pass which goes from Panaji to Dona Paula. He further stated that Dona Paula area was towards southern side from Martin's Beach Corner but he could not see on which cardinal side the sea exists from Martin's Beach Corner. He could not state as to whether the seashore was on the western side from the Martin's Beach Corner. In further cross examination, he stated that he did not recollect number of compartments to the shoulder bag. He denied the suggestion that no contraband was found in the possession of the accused. He also denied the suggestion that there was no electric weighing scale carried by raiding party. He further stated that he acted as pancha witness for the first time in the present matter. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of the accused disputing the version of PW8. In re-examination he was asked whether he could identify the relieving order. He identified the relieving order at Exh. 24 upon the same being shown to him. In further cross examination by advocate appearing for the accused, he stated that the said relieving order was signed by the officer but he did not know his name. He denied the suggestion that such an order was not handed over to him on 5.2.2008 and the same was forwarded to his office. 12. The evidence of PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar is in consonance with the prosecution case and he has substantially corroborated the version of pancha. He denied the suggestion that such an order was not handed over to him on 5.2.2008 and the same was forwarded to his office. 12. The evidence of PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar is in consonance with the prosecution case and he has substantially corroborated the version of pancha. He further deposed that he handed over contraband Exh.1 and cash Exh.2 to lady head constable along with note Exh. 32 and he identified his signature at point B. He also identified his signature on the complaint at Exh. 44 written by him at the police station on 6.2.2008. Lady head constable Ashwini Dessai forwarded muddemal articles for chemical analysis to the Director, FDA. He identified his signature on the copy of the arrest card of the accused which was marked as Exh. 45. He also identified his signature on the intimation under Section 57 of the Act and stated that he had submitted the said intimation at Exh. 30 to Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Govekar. He also deposed that the sketch of scene of offence was also drawn with the assistance of Assistant Engineer PWD, Panaji. He was transferred from Anti Narcotic Cell Police station on 8.5.2008 and he handed over the investigation to PI Shri Shirodkar, who filed the chargesheet. In cross examination, he stated that the accused was found on the pathway which proceeds from Caranzalem beach to Martin's Beach Corner and further to the main road. He denied the suggestion that the sketch attached to Exh. 47 was of the beach and not of any pathway. He denied the suggestion that there is no path way from the beach coming towards Martin's Beach Corner and that the accused was not found near Martin's Beach Corner. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of the accused denying the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. 13. The evidence of PW7 PSI Punaji Gawas is substantially on the same line as that of PW8. He also claimed that the accused was found coming towards Caranzalem from Miramar Beach and going to the Martin's Beach Corner through the path way. Further deposition was on the same line as that of PW8. Suggestions similar to the those put to PW8, were put to this witness. 14. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW5 Dhinraj Govekar who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Further deposition was on the same line as that of PW8. Suggestions similar to the those put to PW8, were put to this witness. 14. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW5 Dhinraj Govekar who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police. His evidence discloses that at about 4.15 hours he received information with a covering letter from PI, Suraj Halarnkar, from Anti Narcotic Cell, Police station that he had received specific information that one Nepali aged about 25 to 30 years would be coming to Caranzalem beach to deliver narcotic drugs to his prospective customers between 5.45p.m to 6.15p.m. He further deposed that he directed PI Suraj Halarnkar to conduct the raid. He identified his signature on the letter received and the same was marked as Exh. 27. On the same day, he received seal along with covering letter from PI Suraj Halarnkar at about 9.30p.m. He identified his signature on Exh. 28. He effected entry on the movement register which was maintained in the office. He identified the same as Exh. 29. He also stated that on the same day he received intimation under Section 57 of the Act which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. 30. Nothing tangible has been brought on record in his cross examination to discredit him. 15. PW6 Ashwini Dessai, head constable attached to Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station deposed that on 5.2.2008 she received a note from PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar, along with property including one sealed cloth parcel containing in it one blue and brown colour shoulder bag containing 1 kg 815 gms of charas and one sealed light green colour envelope containing cash of Rs.600/-. She received both the muddemal properties and kept in safe custody. She identified her signature on the note which was admitted in evidence at Exh.32. She also stated that the entries in column nos. 1 to 5 in the muddemal property register were made by her and she had obtained signature of PI Suraj Halarnkar and thereafter she signed in column no. 7 which she identified. On 6.2.2008, she sent Exh.1 to the office of Scientific Assistant, Porvorim through PC Hari Naik and entry to that effect was made in column no. 1 to 5 in the muddemal property register were made by her and she had obtained signature of PI Suraj Halarnkar and thereafter she signed in column no. 7 which she identified. On 6.2.2008, she sent Exh.1 to the office of Scientific Assistant, Porvorim through PC Hari Naik and entry to that effect was made in column no. 8 and signature of PC Hari Naik was obtained on it which she identified at point D. She received balance quantity of contraband on 2.5.2008 and accordingly entry was made. Thereafter, she handed over balance quantity to PSI Gawas after making entry in column no. 10. She identified her signature on the letter at Exh.12 which was addressed to Superintendent of Police, CID crime while forwarding Exh.1. Suggestion was put to her that she was not authorised to receive the property under the Act. The witness kept mum. She denied that she was not on duty on 5.2.2008 or that she was on leave. She denied the suggestion that she had not received any property from PI Suraj Halarnkar on 5.2.2008 at 9.30p.m. 16. The evidence of PW1 Mahesh Kaisare, a Senior Scientific Officer in the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration discloses that he had carried out test of contraband which was sent and upon conducting several tests he opined that contraband tested positive for charas. He identified his signature on report at Exh.9. He also identified the balance quantity of contraband. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that seals were not intact when contraband was received by the laboratory. He further stated that the colour of substance was dark brown but it looked like black colour. Nothing tangible has been brought on record in the cross examination of this witness to discredit him. PW2 Sushant Naik who was also working as Scientific Assistant in the office of SP CID deposed that on 6.2.2008 he received letter dated 5.2.2008 addressed to SP Crime CID of Anti Narcotic Cell, Police Station and also letter addressed to Director of FDA, Panaji in duplicate and having specimen seal of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji Goa-7 and one sealed cloth parcel( Exh.1) from P.C. B. No. 5667. On the same day he handed over the sealed cloth parcel to Director of FDA, Panaji. 17. On the same day he handed over the sealed cloth parcel to Director of FDA, Panaji. 17. The evidence of PW3 Gauresh Mapari, who was working as Scientific Assistant in the office of SP CID CB discloses that on 4.3.2008 he had received a letter from Director of FDA, Panaji with a request to collect balance quantity from laboratory. He identified the letter Exh. 15. He further stated that on 2.5.2008, police constable G. S. Naik was deputed to collect the balance quantity. He identified his signature on the letter at Exh. 16. He further stated that on the same day he received one sealed cloth parcel from G. S. Naik which he kept in safe custody and on the same day parcel along with the report dated 20.2.2008 was forwarded to PI, Anti Narcotic Cell, Police station through another Police constable of Anti Narcotic Cell, along with his signature. He identified the letter at Exh.17. Except for suggestions denying his version nothing tangible has been brought on record in the cross examination of this witness. 18. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence of above witnesses and more particularly the evidence of PW4, PW7 and PW8, I have no hesitation to hold that the accused was found in possession of 1 kg 815 gms of charas which was kept by the accused in a shoulder bag carried by the accused. In so far as the variation in the testimonies of the above referred three witnesses as contended by learned counsel for the accused is concerned, I do not find that that there is substantial variation in the deposition of the three witnesses. The variation is minor in nature. But all the three witnesses have consistently deposed that the accused was apprehended near the path way leading to Martin's Beach Corner on the Miramar Carazalem beach. Considering that the accused was apprehended on the beach near the bushes it cannot be expected of three witnesses to identify the exact spot. The voluminous documentary evidence tendered by the prosecution to which reference has been made herein above, clearly establishes that the accused was found in the possession of 1 kg 815 gms charas. Considering that the accused was apprehended on the beach near the bushes it cannot be expected of three witnesses to identify the exact spot. The voluminous documentary evidence tendered by the prosecution to which reference has been made herein above, clearly establishes that the accused was found in the possession of 1 kg 815 gms charas. There is absolutely no reason for PW4 who is a government servant to falsely implicate the accused and his version that he was asked to stand as pancha by his superior, is borne out by a documentary evidence and it is difficult to hold that the same has been fabricated by the prosecution. 19. Having regard to the manner in which PW4 has deposed, I find it extremely difficult to hold that he only signed the various documents at the police station although he was not present at the time of the raid. 20. The next question which arises for consideration is whether mandatory provisions of the Act have been breached thereby vitiating the conviction of the accused. In so far as Section 50 of the Act is concerned, the same has been held to be mandatory by a catena of decisions. However, in the present case, the contraband was not found on person of the accused, but was found in a bag carried by the accused. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex court that Section 50 of the Act is not attracted in case contraband is found in the bag carried by the accused. Therefore, Section 50 of the Act is not attracted in the present case in so far as seizure of the contraband from the accused is concerned. 21. However, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself it transpires that muddemal articles were handed over to lady head constable PW6 Ashwini Dessai. Section 52(3) of the Act mandates that the person arrested and the articles seized must be handed over to the officer in charge of nearest police station or officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. In the present case, admittedly PW6 is not the empowered officer. There is breach of Section 52(3) of the Act. Similarly section 55 of the Act requires Officer in charge of police station to take charge and keep in safe custody all the articles seized under the Act. In the present case, admittedly PW6 is not the empowered officer. There is breach of Section 52(3) of the Act. Similarly section 55 of the Act requires Officer in charge of police station to take charge and keep in safe custody all the articles seized under the Act. In the present case, PW8 PI Suraj Halarnkar was officer in charge of Anti Narcotic Cell, Police station and as such in a normal course he would be the officer who is entitled to receive muddemal articles but he himself being investigating officer it would have been appropriate for him to hand over muddemal articles to any superior officer or any other officer of his rank. But as stated above, in the present case muddemal articles were handed over to PW6 lady head constable. The question which arises for consideration is whether breach of Section 52(3) and Section 55 of the act is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 22. In the case of Mohinderkumar (supra), the Apex Court has observed that in case of Balbir Singh's it has been held that Sections 52 and 57 of the Act are mandatory. However, perusal of the judgment of the case of Balbir Singh (supra) discloses that in paragraph 26 it has been specifically held that provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act are not mandatory and in case of non compliance, the accused has to make out a case of prejudice. 23. In the case of BalbirKaur (supra) relied upon by Mr. Rivonkar, the Apex Court held that non compliance of sections 52 and 57 of the Act was not fatal in as much as both the Courts below have concurrently held that appellant was found in conscious possession of contraband. The Apex Court held that in this factual background the accused knew that the accused was raided and as such contravention of the Sections 52 and 57 of the Act was not fatal. 24. Similarly in the case of GurbaxSingh (supra) relied upon by Rivonkar, the Apex Court held that provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directive but the same cannot be totally ignored and any breach thereof will have bearing on appreciation of the evidence. 25. 24. Similarly in the case of GurbaxSingh (supra) relied upon by Rivonkar, the Apex Court held that provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directive but the same cannot be totally ignored and any breach thereof will have bearing on appreciation of the evidence. 25. In the present case, no doubt PW6 Ashwini Dessai was not authorised to receive the muddemal articles, more particularly contraband but her evidence discloses that after receiving the muddemal articles on 5.2.2008 at about 9.30p.m on the very next day, she handed over the same for it being sent for chemical analysis and was eventually sent to Director, FDA, Panaji on the next day. 26. There is not even a suggestion put to this witness that she had tampered with the muddemal articles, more particularly the contraband while she was in possession of the same. Moreover, learned counsel for the accused has not been able to show any prejudice having been caused to the accused on account of noncompliance of Sections 52(3) and 55 of the Act. This being the position, I am unable to hold that the accused is entitled to be acquitted only on the ground that there is breach of Sections 52(3) and 55 of the Act. 27. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that on 5.2.2008 at about 6.00p.m the accused was found in possession of 1 kg 815 gms of charas in a shoulder bag which he was carrying. The evidence led by the prosecution conclusively establishes possession of the contraband by the accused. Therefore, in my considered opinion conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the accused by learned Special Judge deserve no interference. 28. I do not deem it necessary to refer to other judgments relied upon on behalf of the accused and the prosecution inasmuch as the same are not relevant, having regard to the factual matrix in the present case. 29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act and the sentence imposed on him are maintained. 30. Needless to mention that the accused shall be entitled to set off the period of detention in terms of section 428 of Cr.P.C. 31. The appeal stands disposed of.