JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against judgment dated 20-2-2004 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth the Act, 1985), Bilaspur in Special Case No. 10/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Damru Manjhi has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : On 1-4-2003, Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) was posted as Station House Office in GRP Police Station Bilaspur. On that dated, he received information from Mukhbeer that 3 persons were bringing Ganja in Sarnath Express. He recorded Mukhbeer Suchana Panchanama vide Ex. P-1 and also entered the information in Rojnamcha Sanha. He transmitted the same information to Superintendent of Police, Railway vide Ex. P-6 and also informed telephonically. He called the witnesses and thereafter proceeded for platform No.1 of Railway Station, Bilaspur. At about 11.00 p.m., Sarnath Express reached. 3 persons stepped down from the train. All those 3 persons were stopped, in which, the appellant was one of them. On being enquired, the appellant told his name. The appellant was informed about his right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide Ex. P-8 and the consent of the appellant regarding search was recorded vide Ex. P-4. Thereafter, Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) searched the bag of the appellant. The Ganja kept in the bag was seized from the possession of the appellant vide Ex. P-5. The Ganja was weighed at the spot vide Ex. P-11. The Ganja was found to be 2.5 Kgs. The Ganja was physically verified vide Ex. P-10. Sample of the seized Ganja was also prepared separately and sealed. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex. P-12). Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) came back to police station and registered the crime vide First Information Report (Ex. P-13). Details of the action taken was prepared and sent to Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur vide Ex. P-14. The sample of seized Ganja and Ganja was handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for safe custody in the Malkhana. The samples were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. FSL Report (Ex. P-15) was received therefrom. In Ex. P-15, the test of Ganja was found to be positive. P-14. The sample of seized Ganja and Ganja was handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for safe custody in the Malkhana. The samples were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. FSL Report (Ex. P-15) was received therefrom. In Ex. P-15, the test of Ganja was found to be positive. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judge, under the Act, 1985, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri Ashok Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the Act, 1985. Ganja was not sealed by Station House Officer before handing it over to Malkhana. The sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur belatedly. There was no explanation therefor. Therefore, there is possibility of tampering of sample. The Investigating Officer did not prepare Seal Panchanama. Information under Section 57 of the Act, 1985 was also sent belatedly. The search of the appellant was not conducted according to provision of Section 50 of the Act. Hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 4. Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Special Case No. 10/2003. 6. The prosecution examined Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-1), Constable Bhagatram Dhruw (PW-2), ASI Arun Kumar Som (PW-3). Head Constable Anantram Sahare (PW-4), Rajkumar Soni (PW-5) and Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Now, I shall examine whether provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or not? 8. Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that he was posted in Police Station GRP, Bilaspur as Station House Officer. On 1-4-2003, he received information from Mukhbeer that 3 persons were bringing Ganja in Sarnath Express for sale. He recorded Mukhbeer Suchana Panchanama (Ex. P-1) and also entered the information in Rojnamacha Sanha. He further deposed that he transmitted the said information to Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur vide Ex. P-6. 9. On 1-4-2003, he received information from Mukhbeer that 3 persons were bringing Ganja in Sarnath Express for sale. He recorded Mukhbeer Suchana Panchanama (Ex. P-1) and also entered the information in Rojnamacha Sanha. He further deposed that he transmitted the said information to Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur vide Ex. P-6. 9. Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-1) deposed that on 1-4-2003, he was posted as a Constable in Police Station GRP, Bilaspur. On that date, he went to office of the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur and handed over the Mukhbeer Suchana there. ASI Arun Kumar Som (PW-3) deposed that he was posted as Asst. Sub-Inspector/Reader in the office of Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur. He had received Mukhbeer Suchana (Ex. P-1) from Police Station GRP, Bilaspur. He had acknowledged the same in Ex. P-1 itself. 10. Looking to the evidence of Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6), Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-1) and ASI Arun Kumar Som (PW-3), it appears that Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) received the secret information, recorded the same vide Ex. P-1 and communicated it to the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur. It is, therefore, clear that provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 is complied with. 11. Now, I shall examine whether provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or whether provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is mandatory in the instant case? 12. The officer, who is to search a person, is required to inform the person about his right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate. If the person gives consent to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate, he shall immediately be taken to the said officer or the Magistrate, otherwise the search can be made by the concerned officer. The requirement of law has been held to be mandatory in nature and compliance thereof vitiates trial. 13. Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that he had given notice to the appellant for search vide Ex. P-8. The appellant consented to be searched by him. The consent of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P-4. On making search of the appellant after giving him notice before witnesses, Ganja was found in his bag possessed by him. 14. 13. Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that he had given notice to the appellant for search vide Ex. P-8. The appellant consented to be searched by him. The consent of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P-4. On making search of the appellant after giving him notice before witnesses, Ganja was found in his bag possessed by him. 14. A careful perusal of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 indicates that when any authorised officer is about to search any person under the provisions of Sections 41, 42 of the Act, 1985, if such person requires, he has to take such person, without unnecessarily delay, to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to nearest Magistrate. 15. In the instant case, Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that the appellant was informed that he was entitled to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In Ex. P-8, it is mentioned that (Vernacular matter omitted Ed.) 16. From bare perusal of Ex. P-8, it reveals that Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) informed the appellant about his right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985. 17. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 964 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 12.A. ...... This Court in the case of Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 257 : ( AIR 2000 SC 402 ), discussed the provisions pertaining to personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and held as follows : .... if a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found from it, it cannot be said that it was found from his person. Similarly, in the case of Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 8 SCC 666 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3184 ), this Court observed that: A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to a search of a vehicle or container or a bag or premises. The scope and ambit of Section 50 was also examined by this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2265 ). In paragraphs 10 and 11, this Court observed as follows : 10. The scope and ambit of Section 50 was also examined by this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2265 ). In paragraphs 10 and 11, this Court observed as follows : 10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word person, which the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common-sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilized society. Therefore, the most, appropriate meaning of the word person appears to be the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing. In a civilized society, appropriate coverings and clothing‘s are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothing’s. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside one’s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the word person would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some, extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance, it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word person occurring in Section 50 of the Act. ......... 18. In Madanlal and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003) 7 SCC 465 : (AIR 2003 SC 3642) and Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 8 SCC 666 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3184 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a bare reading of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. The language of Section 50 is implicity clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicle or articles. The position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2378 ). 19. In State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh, (2009) 12 SCC 205 : (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 2050), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no legal bar on recording the conviction on the basis of evidence of official witness and Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has no application as there was no personal search. 19. In State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh, (2009) 12 SCC 205 : (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 2050), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no legal bar on recording the conviction on the basis of evidence of official witness and Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has no application as there was no personal search. (See also Lopchand Naruji Jat and another v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 7 SCC 566 ) : ( AIR 2004 SC 4645 ). 20. In view of the above settled legal position, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 would not be applicable when search is made in a house or a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. In the instant case, the search was made of the bag of the appellant, therefore, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is not applicable. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) is not supported by independent witness. Therefore, conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the evidence of Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6). 22. In Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M. P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3106 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : 25. In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of the complainant or a police official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. 26. It is not necessary to refer to various decisions on the point. We may, however, state that before more than half a century, in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 , Venkatarama Ayyar, J. stated : (AIR p. 230, para 40). 40. .....The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration. 27. In Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 : ( AIR 1996 SC 3079 ), dealing with a similar question, Dr. A. S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated : (SCC p. 341, para 6) (P. 111, Para 26 of AIR) 6. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. 23. In the instant case, Rajkumar Soni (PW-5) who is witness of seizure memo (Ex. P-5), consent of the appellant (Ex. P-4), Weighing Panchanama (Ex. P-11) deposed that he had gone at platform No.1 of Railway Station, Bilaspur. At about 11.30 p.m., Sarnath Express reached at platform Nos. 1 and 3 persons had stepped down from the train. He further deposed that Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) had given the notice to the appellant and informed about his right and thereafter he made search. P-11) deposed that he had gone at platform No.1 of Railway Station, Bilaspur. At about 11.30 p.m., Sarnath Express reached at platform Nos. 1 and 3 persons had stepped down from the train. He further deposed that Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) had given the notice to the appellant and informed about his right and thereafter he made search. He further deposed that the appellant was carrying bag and the bag was searched by Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) and Ganja was kept in the bag which was seized by Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6). The Ganja was weighed and found to be 2.5Kgs. 24. Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that the Ganja was recovered from the bag of the appellant. Identification of recovered article was conducted and identification Panchanama (Ex. P-10) was prepared. The Ganja was weighed on the spot. On weighing, it was found 2.5 Kgs. The sample of 100 grams was prepared on the spot and sealed and the Ganja was seized vide Ex. P-5. He further deposed that he put the specimen seal impression on the seizure memo (Ex. P-5). The evidence of Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) is corroborated by Rajkumar Soni (PW-5). Therefore, his evidence can be based for conviction. 25. Now, I shall examine whether provisions of Sections 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985 have been complied with? 26. Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that Ganja like substance was recovered from the bag of the appellant. He further deposed that seized Ganja was weighed in presence of the witnesses. Weighing Panchanama (Ex. P-11) was also prepared on the spot. The bag had contained 2.5Kgs. of Ganja which was recovered from the possession of the appellant. He further deposed that the sample packet, containing 100 grams of Ganja was prepared. Seizure memo was prepared vide Ex. P-5 and specimen seal impression was put up on Ex. P-5. He further deposed that he arrested the appellant vide Ex. P-12 and he took the appellant along with Ganja to Police Station GRP, Bilaspur and registered the FIR (Ex. P-13) against the appellant. Copy of the FIR (Ex. P-13), arrest memo (Ex. P-12) and seizure memo (Ex. P-5) was sent to the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur vide Ex. P-14. He further deposed that he had handed over the property to the Malkhana Moharrir for its safe custody. 27. P-13) against the appellant. Copy of the FIR (Ex. P-13), arrest memo (Ex. P-12) and seizure memo (Ex. P-5) was sent to the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur vide Ex. P-14. He further deposed that he had handed over the property to the Malkhana Moharrir for its safe custody. 27. Head Constable Anantram Sahare (PW-4) deposed that he was posted as Malkhana Moharrir at Police Station GRP, Bilaspur. On 1-4-2003, he received the property for safe custody from Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) and he gave his acknowledgment in Ex. P-2 itself. He further deposed that entry of the property was made in Malkhana register (Ex. P-3) and its copy is Ex. P-3C at serial No. 8. 28. Looking to the evidence of Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) and Head Constable Anantram Sahare (PW-4), it is clear that the seized Ganja and its sample were handed over by Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody and the same is corroborated by Ex. P-3C. 29. Sub-Inspector R. L. Bada (PW-6) deposed that he prepared the sample and sealed the seized Ganja and the sample on the spot. He further deposed that he sent the sample to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination which acknowledgment is Ex. P-2. FSL report is Ex. P-15. Head Constable Anantram Sahare (PW-4) deposed that the sample was sent to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination on 10-4-2002 through Constable Bhagatram Dhruw (PW-2). Bhagatram Dhruw (PW-2) deposed that he was posted as Constable at Police Station GRP, Bilaspur. On 10-4-2003, he took the sample regarding Crime No. 321/2003 of Police Station GRP, Bilaspur to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination and delivered the same at FSL, Raipur. Acknowledgment thereof is Ex. P-2. In Ex. P-2, it is mentioned that an article was received from Constable 424 Bhagatram Dhruw (PW-2), Police Station GRP, Bilaspur on 10-4-2003. In Ex. P-15, it is mentioned that an article was received from Constable 424 Bhagatram Dhruw (PW-2), Police Station GRP, Bilaspur on 10-4-2003 in sealed condition. In Ex. P-15, it is mentioned as follows : (Vernacular matter omitted Ed.) 30. It appears that Ganja was seized and sample thereof was prepared on 1-4-2003 and sample was sent to FSL, Raipur on 10-4-2003, i.e., after 9 days of the seizure. 31. In Ex. P-15, it is mentioned as follows : (Vernacular matter omitted Ed.) 30. It appears that Ganja was seized and sample thereof was prepared on 1-4-2003 and sample was sent to FSL, Raipur on 10-4-2003, i.e., after 9 days of the seizure. 31. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 2011 SC 964 ) (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : 14. ..... The trial Court as well as the High Court, on examination of the entire material, concluded that there was sufficient independent evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the completion of link evidence. Therefore, the delay in sending the sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner pales into insignificance. We are of the considered opinion that mere delay in sending the sample of the narcotic to the office of the Chemical Examiner would not be sufficient to conclude that the sample has been tampered with. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the delay, if any, was wholly unintentional. This Court had occasion to deal with a similar issue, in the case of Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2009) 15 SCC 795 : ( AIR 2009 SC 3036 ). The Court made the following observations: As far as delay in sending the samples is concerned, we find the said contention untenable in law. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Hardip Singh case ( AIR 2009 SC 432 : 2008 AIR SCW 7514) wherein there was a gap of 40 days between seizure and sending the sample to the chemical examiner. Despite the said fact the Court held that in view of cogent evidence that opium was seized from the appellant and the seals put on the sample were intact till it was handed over to the chemical examiner, delay itself is not fatal to the prosecution case. ........... 32. Therefore, mere delay of 9 days in sending the sample to the office of the chemical examiner would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The seal was found intact and it was tallied with the specimen seal. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there was tampering of the seal of the sample. It must be presumed that the sample, which was sealed at the time of recovery, must have been sent to the FSL properly. 33. The seal was found intact and it was tallied with the specimen seal. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there was tampering of the seal of the sample. It must be presumed that the sample, which was sealed at the time of recovery, must have been sent to the FSL properly. 33. The defence has not been able to prove that the seal put on the seized article and the sample was, in any manner, tampered with before the sample was examined by the Chemical Examiner. There was mere delay of about 9 days in sending the sample to FSL, Raipur. It is not proved as to how the aforesaid delay of 9 days affected the same examination when it could not be proved that the seal of the sample was, in any manner, tampered with. In the circumstances, when the seal was found intact at the time of examination by the Chemical Examiner and the said fact was recorded by him in his report, mere delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner itself would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 34. Therefore, in the instant case, from the above, it is apparent that provisions of Sections 42, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985 are substantially complied with. I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge. 35. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.