JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J.:- The case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2003, ASI Jai Kishan alongwith other police officials was present near the gate of new grain market, bus stand, Samalkha in connection with patrolling and checking of crime, where appellant carrying a polythene bag in his right hand came from the side of bus stand, Samalkha who on seeing the police party retreated and started swiftly walking towards the bus stand. He was intercepted by the police party on the basis of suspicion. Since, ASI Jai Kishan suspected that the appellant was carrying some narcotic in the bag being carried by him in his right hand, he served notice upon him (appellant) Ex.PE under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (‘NDPS Act’ - for short) asking whether he wanted his bag to be searched in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate. 2. Thereupon, appellant reposed confidence in the Investigating Officer and opted to be searched by him vide his reply Ex.PE/1. Ex.PE and Ex.PE/1 were signed by the appellant and attested by HC Sham Lal and Constable Taqdir Singh. Thereafter, ASI Jai Kishan conducted the search of the bag being carried by the appellant in his right hand, that contained charas, which was weighed and on weighment, it was found to be 2 kgs. Out of that 20 gms were drawn as sample, which was sealed in parcel, that was sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘JK’ by ASI Jai Kishan, who also prepared the parcel of the remaining charas, which too was sealed by him with his seal bearing impression ‘JK’. ASI Jai Kishan handed over his seal to HC Sham Lal after use. Then, he prepared ruqa Ex.PG and sent the same to police station through Constable Satish Kumar, where formal FIR Ex.PG/1 was recorded by ASI Ishwar Singh. 3. Thereafter, ASI Jai Kishan prepared rough site plan Ex. PH with correct marginal notes of the place of recovery. He also arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.PI, that was signed by the appellant, as also, by the witnesses. He also prepared the search memo Ex.PJ of the appellant, that was signed by the latter and attested by the witnesses. He also prepared the report Ex.PK, that was shown to DSP Samalkha. He also arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.PI, that was signed by the appellant, as also, by the witnesses. He also prepared the search memo Ex.PJ of the appellant, that was signed by the latter and attested by the witnesses. He also prepared the report Ex.PK, that was shown to DSP Samalkha. Thereafter, ASI Jai Kishan recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ - for short). 4. On return to the police station, ASI Jai Kishan produced the appellant, case property, sample, sample seal and witnesses before the Station House Officer of Police Station Samalkha, who verified the facts of this case and affixed his own seal bearing impression ‘RK’ on the parcels, as also he affixed his own seal on the sheet of sample seal. Station House Officer directed ASI Jai Kishan to deposit the case property with the MHC that he deposited later on. He locked the appellant in the police lock up of police station. Sample of this case was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by MHC Om Parkash through Constable Ramesh Kumar and latter vide its report Ex.PX declared the contents of the sample parcel to be of ‘charas’. 5. After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Samalkha instituted police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the learned Special Judge, Panipat to the effect that it appeared that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 6. On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellant and charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant, whereto, latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined, as many as, 07 witnesses who testified as under: - 8. PW-1 Constable Naresh Kumar tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PA. PW-2 HC Om Parkash tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PB. Cross-examination of both the witnesses was deferred. Instead of tendering them for cross-examination, they were examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively, and they tendered in evidence their fresh affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD respectively. 9. PW-5 HC Sham Lal testified that on 16.11.2003, he joined the police party headed by ASI Jai Kishan and they were present near the bus stop Samalkha on its southern side. Instead of tendering them for cross-examination, they were examined as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively, and they tendered in evidence their fresh affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD respectively. 9. PW-5 HC Sham Lal testified that on 16.11.2003, he joined the police party headed by ASI Jai Kishan and they were present near the bus stop Samalkha on its southern side. The appellant was seen coming carrying a plastic bag in his hand and he was intercepted and searched by ASI Jai Kishan that resulted in recovery of 2 kgs of ‘charas’ from the bag being carried by the appellant in his right hand. He further testified that 20 gms were drawn as sample from charas contained in the bag and both the sample parcel and the remaining charas were made into two separate parcels by putting those in plastic containers. He further testified that both the parcels were sealed by ASI Jai Kishan with his seal bearing impression ‘JK’ and seal after used was handed over to him and the case property was seized vide memo Ex.PF. He further testified that later the appellant was arrested by ASI Jai Kishan and on return to the police station, case property and the witnesses were produced before SHO Ram Kishan, who after verification affixed his own seal bearing impression ‘RK’ on the sample and the parcel Ex.P1 containing remaining charas, which was produced during the deposition of this witness. He also testified that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. 10. PW-6 SHO Ram Kishan testified that on 16.11.2003, he was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Samalkha, on which day, ASI Jai Kishan produced before him the appellant and the case property and he verified the investigation conducted by ASI Jai Kishan and affixed his own seal bearing impression ‘RK’ on the sample parcel, as also, on the case property. Then, he directed ASI Jai Kishan to deposit the case property and sample with the MHC and to lock up the appellant in the police lock up. He also testified that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by him, that bears his signatures. PW-7 ASI Jai Kishan, conducted the investigation of this case and deposed on the lines of investigation, that has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment. 11. He also testified that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by him, that bears his signatures. PW-7 ASI Jai Kishan, conducted the investigation of this case and deposed on the lines of investigation, that has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment. 11. After tendering the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PX, the prosecution evidence was closed. 12. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. 13. Appellant was called upon to enter in defence and he examined Constable Sumer Singh, who brought the register No.19 of Police Station Samalkha and proved photocopy, thereof, Ex.DA. He also brought register No.21 and proved photocopy, thereof, Ex.DB. He also brought the departure register and proved photocopy, thereof, Ex.DC. Later the appellant closed his defence evidence. 14. After hearing both the sides, as also, after perusing the evidence and documents on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2005, convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 of the NDPS Act and vide impugned order of sentence dated 22.11.2005, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellant, who was accused before the learned trial Court has come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for his acquittal of the charge framed against him by the learned trial Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant in absence of compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He also contended that the alleged occurrence took place at a busy place, but no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer in the police party and only police officials conducted the search. So, he contended that non-joining of any independent witness at the alleged place of recovery is itself sufficient to raise an adverse inference against the respondent. He also contended that even the statements of the prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory and, therefore, were not worth reliance. So, he contended that non-joining of any independent witness at the alleged place of recovery is itself sufficient to raise an adverse inference against the respondent. He also contended that even the statements of the prosecution witnesses are highly contradictory and, therefore, were not worth reliance. So, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the latter may be accorded benefit of doubt and acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 16. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana contended that there is no flaw in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, that are based on cogent, corroborating and reliable testimonies of unimpeachable character consisting of PW-1 to PW-7 and, therefore, these were rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. So, he contended that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2005 and order of sentence dated 21.11.2005, may be upheld and affirmed, as these do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. 17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, as also, perused the evidence and documents placed on the record of the learned trial Court with their assistance. 18. PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) are the material witnesses of recovery of 2 kgs charas from the appellant, that was recovered on 16.01.2003. These witnesses unanimously deposed that on 16.01.2003, the appellant was apprehended on suspicion at bus stand Samalkha, who was carrying a bag in his right hand. They further unanimously testified that the search of the bag being carried by the appellant in his right hand, resulted in recovery of 2 kgs of charas contained, therein. They also testified in candid words that 20 gms were drawn as sample and both the parcels were sealed and seized vide recovery memo Ex.PH. Both these witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned trial Court, but long cross-examination failed to elicit anything worth the name, which could possibly cause any dent in their testimonies. 19. Both, PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) are not alleged to have any animus or hostility against the appellant prior to the incident. 19. Both, PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) are not alleged to have any animus or hostility against the appellant prior to the incident. Therefore, no motive can be ascribed to them to testify falsely in this case. There is no material contradiction in their testimonies. Indeed, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to point to any major discrepancy, that could cause any dent in the prosecution version. Otherwise, human memory is fallible, that erodes with the passage of time, therefore, after the passage of time, some discrepancies are likely to occur, even in the testimony of truthful witnesses. So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimonies of PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) are discrepant, is not made out from the record. As such the contention in this regard raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, hereby, repelled. 20. Regarding non association of non official witnesses, suffice, it to say that people are generally averse to join the police and depose in favour of the prosecution, as they are afraid of the fact that joining the police and deposing in favour of the prosecution may expose them to serious consequences. Moreover, as already noticed that PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) are not alleged to have any animus or hostility against the appellant prior to the day of recovery. 21. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1459 (SC) : 2010(3) Law Herald (SC) 1519] : 2010 (2) JT 175 ; though in cases like the case in hand, independent evidence is required, but accused cannot be acquitted merely because no independent witness produced. Hence conviction was upheld inter alia on said ground. So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that evidence of PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) cannot be relied upon for want of corroboration by the evidence of independent witness, is repelled, in view of the judgment (supra). 22. Regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, in this case, suffice it to say that the question of compliance or noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is relevant only in case of personal search of the person. 22. Regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, in this case, suffice it to say that the question of compliance or noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is relevant only in case of personal search of the person. The said Section does not extent to search a vehicle or a container or bag, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court India in Ajmer Singh’s case (supra). It has also been held in Ajmer Singh’s case (supra) that the language of section is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrast to search of premises, vehicles, or articles. This position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh; 1999 (3) RCR (Criminal) 533, after exhaustive consideration of the decision of this Court in the case of Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala; 1994 (3) RCR (Criminal) 595 and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigating), New Delhi & Ors; 1974 (1) SCC 345 . 23. A bare reading of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, shows that it does not extend to search a vehicle or a container or bag or premises. Reliance can also be placed upon in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, [2005(2) Law Herald (SC) 617] : 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 622; passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held that 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 or 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. 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 NDPS Act. 24. It was also held that the provisions of Section 50 will come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag, article or container etc. which (the accused) may be carrying. 25. So, in view of the aforementioned judgments, Section 50 of the NDPS Act, can have no application on the facts and circumstances of the present case, as charas was recovered from the bag, that was being carried by the appellant in his right hand, as can be seen from the unanimous testimonies of PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan), that have been accepted to be veritable for the reasons given supra. 26. It can be noticed from the testimonies of PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) that on the day of recovery, appellant and the case property were taken to police station, where these were produced before PW-6 (SI Ram Kishan), who was working as Station House Officer of Police Station Samalkha and latter in his deposition deposed that the case property was produced before him by PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan), who investigated this case. 26.A PW-6 (SI Ram Kishan) was subjected to lengthy crossexamination, but long cross-examination failed to elicit anything worth the name, which could possibly shatter his evidence. No motive can be ascribed to him to testify falsely in this case regarding production of case property before him by PW-7 (ASI Ram Kishan), in order to comply with the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. No motive can be ascribed to him to testify falsely in this case regarding production of case property before him by PW-7 (ASI Ram Kishan), in order to comply with the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. So, it is candid from the testimonies of PW-5 (HC Sham Lal), PW-6 (SI Ram Kishan) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) that the compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act was made by the Investigating Officer, although this section is only directory and even non-compliance, thereof, cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to accused, as held by this Court in Surinder v. State of Haryana, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 370. 27. The intimation regarding the recovery through delivery of FIR was sent to the higher police officers, as also to the Illaqa Magistrate. Link evidence is also complete in this case. PW-3 (Constable Om Parkash), PW-4 (Constable Naresh Kumar) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) handled the case property during investigation. These witnesses in their deposition deposed that, so long as, the case property remained in their possession, neither they nor anyone else tampered, therewith. PW-3 (Constable Om Parkash), PW-4 (Constable Naresh Kumar) tendered their affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD respectively adjuring, therein, that, so long as, the case property remained in their possession, neither they nor anyone else tampered, therewith. These witnesses were also partly examined, as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and their crossexamination were deferred and when they appeared again in the Court, instead of tendering them for cross-examination, learned Public Prosecutor examined them as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. This inadvertent error has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. There is no flaw in their affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PD. It follows that the sample parcel of this case was deposited in the FSL in an intact condition and the latter vide its report Ex.PX declared the contents, thereof, to be of charas. Link evidence in this case, is thus, complete. 28. It, thus, follows that the contents of 2 kgs of contraband that was recovered from the appellant by PW-5 (HC Sham Lal) and PW-7 (ASI Jai Kishan) in presence of other police officials contained in a bag carried by the appellant in his right hand were charas. It constitutes commercial quantity being more than 1 kg in weight. It is the case of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It constitutes commercial quantity being more than 1 kg in weight. It is the case of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is no doubt that he examined Constable Sumer Singh as DW-1 in defence but his defence witness only produced certain registers that are inconsequential to the appellant and on the basis of deposition of Constable Sumer Singh (DW-1), it is arduous to come to the conclusion that 2 kg of charas were not recovered from the appellant from a bag being carried by him in his right hand, on 16.01.2003 in the area of bus stand Smalkha. 29. The learned trial Court rightly observed that since the appellant is a native of Himachal Pradesh, the police could not involve him falsely in the case in hand by bringing him from his State. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that are, hereby, repelled. 30. There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the learned trial Court, who rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C). So, the impugned judgment of conviction is, hereby, upheld and affirmed. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant, then contended that keeping in view the quantity of the contraband, as also circumstances of the case, wherein, offence was committed, age and antecedents of the appellant, a lenient view regarding imposition of sentence may be taken. 32. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana contended that the impugned order of sentence may be upheld and affirmed and that the sentence may not be reduced. 33. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties regarding imposition of sentence and we are of the view that keeping in view the circumstances of the case, age and antecedents of the appellant and quantity of the contraband, some leniency can be shown on the point of imposition of sentence. Appellant has been in jail from the date of his arrest in the case. He has already spent 9 years in jail. Appellant has been in jail from the date of his arrest in the case. He has already spent 9 years in jail. Keeping in view the period of imprisonment undergone by the appellant, as also, quantity of the contraband, we are of the view that imposision of minimum sentence prescribed under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act shall be a condign punishment and ends of justice can be met in this case by imposing of minimum sentence prescribed, therein. 34. Therefore, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant to 10 years and of fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 35. Resultantly, except for this modification in the impugned order of sentence, the appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed and the appellant shall now undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. Period already undergone by the appellant in jail, during trial, investigation and pendency of this appeal shall be set off from the substantive sentence of 10 years.