Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 213 (CHH)

ANJANI TIWARI v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-07-17

Radhe Shyam Sharma

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 20-11-2007 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Bilaspur in Special Case No.9/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellants Anjani Tiwari and Ashok Kumar have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police Station Ratanpur, on 14-04-2007, he received information that the appellants were bringing Ganja from Orissa and going towards Shahdol through Ratanpur-Pendra Road in Santro Car. He recorded mukbir suchana panchnama (Ex.-P/4) and also entered it in rojnamcha sanha No.596 (Ex.-P/25). He transmitted the same to SDO(P) Kota vide Ex.-P/5 and also recorded it in rojnamcha sanha No.598 (Ex.-P/7). Thereafter, he proceeded for Bhim Chowk, Ratanpur. One Santro Car was coming there towards Bilaspur. He stopped the Santro Car. On being inquired, the appellants told their names as Anjani Tiwari and Ashok Kumar. The appellants were informed about their right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide Ex.-P/6 and Ex.-P/7 and their consent were recorded in Ex.-P/8 and Ex.-P/9. Thereafter, Sub-inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) searched the Santro Car. In the said Santro Car, 19 bags (bora) were found. Identification of the recovered articles was conducted vide Ex.-P/19. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered articles were Ganja. Ganja was weighed on the spot vide Ex.-P/21 and it was found that out of 19 bags, (1) one jute bag (bori) had contained 10.00 kg., (2) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (3) one jute bag had contained 6.00 kg., (4) one jute bag had contained 10.00 kg., (5) one jute bag had contained 5.500 kg., (6) one jute bag had contained 9.00 kg. (7) one jute bag had contained 10.00 kg. (7) one jute bag had contained 10.00 kg. (8) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (9) one jute bag had contained 11.00 kg., (10) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (11) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (12) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (13) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (14) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (15) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (16) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (17) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (18) one jute bag had contained 5.500 kg. and (19) one jute bag had contained 5.00 kg. of Ganja. Total 190.00 kg. of Ganja were recovered from the Santro Car and a seizure panchnama (Ex.-P/23) was prepared and 19 samples of the seized Ganja were prepared separately, each sample contained 100 grams of Ganja. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) came back to Police Station Rantanpur along with the seized Ganja and the appellants. First Information Report (Ex.-P/31) was recorded in Police Station Ratanpur. The appellants were arrested vide Ex.-P/29 to P/30. The seized articles were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody. 19 samples of seized Ganja were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-32. A report (Ex.-P/ 33) was received therefrom, in which, test of Ganja was found positive in all the 19 samples. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1985, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 3. Shri Suresh Verma and Shri Ajay Barik, learned counsel for their respective appellant argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that the secret information was not sent to Superior Officer. They further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the bags (bora/bori) were containing Ganja and the samples taken out from the bags were sealed and specimen of seal was prepared. The seizure from the appellants were not in accordance with law. The conscious possession was not proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he recovered 19 bags and prepared 19 samples. The seizure from the appellants were not in accordance with law. The conscious possession was not proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he recovered 19 bags and prepared 19 samples. Neeraj Dubey (PW-4) did not support the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seized articles were Ganja. They further argued that the recovered articles were not sealed by the Station House Officer before handing it over to Malkhana Moharrir. The samples were sent to FSL, Raipur belatedly and there is no explanation therefor. Hence, the appellants deserve acquittal. 4. On the contrary, Shri T.Nande, learned Panel Lawyer appearing 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 rival contentions of the parties and have also perused the record of Special Case No.9/2007. 6. Now, I shall examine whether the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or not? 7. Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that on 14-04-2007, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police Station Ratanpur. On 14-04-2007, he received information from mukhbir that the appellants were bringing Ganja in a Santro Car without bearing registration number from Orissa and they were going towards Shahdol via Ratanpur-Pendra Road for selling the same. He further deposed that he recorded mukhbir suchna panchnama vide Ex.-P/4 and also entered the above mukhbir suchna in rojnamcha sanha No.596 (Ex.P/25) and its copy is Ex.-P/25C. He further deposed that the secret information was sent to SDO(P). Shantiyal Kujur (PW-5) deposed that he was posted as Reader to SDO(P), Kota. He further deposed that he received mukhbir suchna panchnama vide (Ex.-P/5) and acknowledged the same in Ex.-P/5 itself. 8. Uttam Kumar Tamboli (PW-3) deposed that Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) received mukhbir suchna from mukhbir, prepared mukhbir suchna panchnama (Ex.-P/4) and transmitted it to superior officer vide Ex.-P/5. 9. Shantiyal Kujur (PW-5) deposed that he was posted as Reader to SDO(P), Kota. He further deposed that he received mukhbir suchna panchnama vide (Ex.-P/5) and acknowledged the same in Ex.-P/5 itself. 8. Uttam Kumar Tamboli (PW-3) deposed that Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) received mukhbir suchna from mukhbir, prepared mukhbir suchna panchnama (Ex.-P/4) and transmitted it to superior officer vide Ex.-P/5. 9. Looking to the evidence of Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6), Shantiyal Kujur (PW-5), Uttam Kumar Tamboli (PW-3), Ex.P/5, Ex.P/25C and Ex.P/26C, it appears that Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) received secret information, he recorded the same vide Ex.-P/4 and also entered it into rojnamcha sanha (Ex.-P/25) and communicated it to SDO(P), Kota. 10. Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act, 1985 are mandatory in nature and need strict compliance and which ought to be construed complied with strictly. Compliance of furnishing information to the superior officer should be forthwith or within a very short time, while total non-compliance of requirement of Sections 42(1) or 42(2) is impermissible. Delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation for delay would be acceptable and whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. 11. Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act, 1985 are mandatory in nature. In the instant case, Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) received secret information, entered it into rojnamcha sanha, also prepared mukhbir suchna panchnama and transmitted it to SDO(P), Kota, immediately. Therefore, there was substantial compliance of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. 12. Now, I shall examine whether provision under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or not, or whether compliance of the provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is mandatory in the instant case. 13. Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that before making search he had given notice to the appellants vide Ex.P/6 and PI7. He further deposed that the appellants gave their consent vide Ex.-P/8 and Ex.-P/9. 14. Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he informed the appellants vide notice Ex.-P/6 and P/7 that they had right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate. He further deposed that the appellants gave their consent vide Ex.-P/8 and Ex.-P/9. 14. Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he informed the appellants vide notice Ex.-P/6 and P/7 that they had right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate. In the notice (Ex.-P/6), it is mentioned thus: ^^eq>s vkids ikl voS/k eknd inkFkZ xkatk gksus dh lwpuk izkIr gqbZ gS ftlds fy;s ryk’kh ysuk vko’;d gS vkidks oS/kkfud laj{k.k izkIr gS fd vki viuk ryk’kh eftLVªsV vFkok jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds le{k djk ldrs gSa vr% bl laca/k esa vkidks lwpuk nh tkrh gSA uksfVl dks i<+dj xokgksa ds le{k lquk;k x;kA** In the consent (Ex.-P/8), it is mentioned thus: ^^eSa vatuh frokjh o- txnh’k frokjh mez 25 o”kZ fuoklh dcjk Fkkuk t;flag uxj ftyk&’kgMksy dk jgus okyk gw¡ esjs dCts ds lsUVªksdkj ¼lksYM½ flYoj dyj esa xkatk gksus dh lwpuk gS rks eSa vkidks mi fujh{kd vk’kh”k oklfud iz-vkj- gsear vkfnR; l- m- fu- vkj ;kno vkj 61 vt; flag dks viuh rFkk dkj dh ryk’kh nsus esa lger gw¡A vki yksxksa xokgksa ds le{k esjs ,oa esjs dkj dh ryk’kh ys ldrs gSa eq>s dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA** In the notice (Ex.-P/7), it is mentioned thus: ^^eq>s vkids ikl voS/k eknd inkFkZ xkatk gksus dh lwpuk izkIr gqbZ gS ftlds fy;s ryk’kh ysuk vko’;d gS vkidks oS/kkfud laj{k.k izkIr gS fd vki viuk ryk’kh eftLVªsV vFkok jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds le{k djk ldrs gSa vr% bl laca/k esa vkidks lwpuk nh tkrh gSA uksfVl dks i<+dj xokgksa ds le{k lquk;k x;kA** In the consent (Ex.-P/9), it is mentioned thus: ^^eSa v’kksd dqekj o- jkosUnz flag daoj mez 24 o”kZ fuoklh pansyk Fkkuk t;flag uxj ftyk&’kgMksy dk jgus okyk gw¡ esjs dCts ds lsUVªksdkj ¼lksYM½ flYoj dyj esa xkatk gksus dh lwpuk gS rks eSa vkidks mi fujh{kd vk’kh”k oklfud iz- vkj- gsear vkfnR; l- m- fu- vkj ;kno vkj 61 vt; flag dks viuh rFkk dkj dh ryk’kh nsus esa lger gw¡A vki yksxksa xokgksa ds le{k esjs ,oa esjs dkj dh ryk’kh ys ldrs gSa eq>s dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA** 15. In the instant case, from bare perusal of Ex.-P/6 to P/9, it reveals that Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) informed the appellants about their legal right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 to be searched before a gazetted officer or before a Magistrate or before him and, therefore, provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is complied with. 16. In the instant case, the search was made of Santro Car. When the search is made of a house or a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is not applicable. In the instant case, the search was made of Santro Car, therefore, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 would not be applicable. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence of Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) has not been supported by the independent witnesses and there are material contradictions in their statements. Therefore, the conviction cannot be based on the evidence of Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6). 18. In Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 , 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. 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. 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 , dealing with a similar question, Dr. A.S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated : (See p. 341, para 6) "6. ... Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form 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." 19. In P.P. Beeren Vs. State of Kerala 2001 (9) SCC 571 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "Sub-Inspector of police searching the appellant/accused and finding him to be in possession of opium, in such circumstances, evidence of Sub-Inspector, even if not corroborated by any other held can nonetheless be made the sole basis for conviction." 20. In Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (2003) 5 SCC 291 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "8. ......... The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down..........." 21. In Sumit Tomar Vs. State of Punjab (2013) 1 SCC 395 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "10. ........... However, in the absence of any animosity between the accused and the official witnesses, there is nothing wrong in relying on their testimonies and accepting the documents placed for basing conviction. After taking into account the entire materials relied on by the prosecution, there is no animosity established on the part of the official witnesses by the accused in defence and we also do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case..........." 22. In the instant case, Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he reached near Bhim Chowk, Ratanpur. One Santro Car without bearing registration number came there. He stopped the Santro Car. On being inquired, the appellants told their names. The appellants were sitting inside the Santro Car. He further deposed that the appellants were informed about their legal right and thereafter he searched the Santro Car and found 19 bags (bora) which were kept in the car. He further deposed that physical verification of the recovered articles was conducted vide Ex.-P/19. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered articles were Ganja. Thereafter, Ganja was weighed and weight panchnama was prepared vide Ex.-P/21. 23. Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that the recovered 19 bags were weighed and total weight of the Ganja was found as 190.00 kg. He prepared 19 samples of 100 grams each. The recovered Ganja and the samples were sealed and specimen seal impression was affixed on the seizure memo. 24. Uttam Kumar Tamboli (PW-3) deposed that on 14-04-2007, he had gone to Bhim Chowk Ratanpur along with Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW6). One Santro Car was coming from Bilaspur. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) stopped the car and Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) searched the car. He further deposed that 19 bori (bags) were found in the car. The Ganja was weighed and seized on the spot. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he deposed that they reached Bhim Chowk in the evening. One Santro Car was coming from Bilaspur. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) stopped the car and Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) searched the car. He further deposed that 19 bori (bags) were found in the car. The Ganja was weighed and seized on the spot. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he deposed that they reached Bhim Chowk in the evening. In para 7, he deposed that when the car was stopped, at that time, he was present along with Ashish Vashnik (PW-6). He further deposed that police personnel brought a taraju and the Ganja was weighed on the spot. 25. Uttam Kumar Tamboli (PW-3) specifically deposed that he had gone to Bhim Chowk Ratanpur where Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) stopped the Santro Car, searched the car and recovered 19 bags from the car. Evidence of Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) is duly corroborated by Uttam Kumar Tamboli (PW-3). 26. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that Ganja was seized vide (Ex.P23) and he prepared samples of 100 grams from each bags. He further deposed that he came back to Police Station Ratanpur along with the appellants and seized articles and he arrested the appellants vide Ex.P/29 & P/30 and to that effect, he made entry in Rojnamcha Sanha No.604 (Ex.P-28) and its copy is Ex.P-28C. He further deposed that he recorded FIR (Ex.P/31) in Police Station Ratanpur. 27. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he handed over the seized articles to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody. Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-1) deposed that on 14-04-2007 he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Ratanpur. He further deposed that Station House Officer Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) handed over him 188 Kg of Ganja and 19 seal-packed Ganja containing 100 grams each to him for their safe custody. He further deposed that he had kept the said articles in Malkhana. Then the entry of the same was made in Malkhana Register (Ex.P-8) at serial No.29 and its copy is Ex.P-8C. 28. Looking to the evidence of Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) and Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-1), it is clear that the seized articles and the samples were deposited in Malkhana for their safe custody in sealed condition and the evidence on record would show that Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) affixed specimen seal on the seizure memo (Ex.P-23). 29. 28. Looking to the evidence of Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) and Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-1), it is clear that the seized articles and the samples were deposited in Malkhana for their safe custody in sealed condition and the evidence on record would show that Sub-Inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) affixed specimen seal on the seizure memo (Ex.P-23). 29. Looking to the evidence of Ashish Vashnik (PW-6), it is clear that the seized articles and the samples were sealed by Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) and seal impression was affixed on the seizure memo and thereafter the seized Ganja and the samples were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody. 30. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination. Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-1) deposed that on 17-04-2007 the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur through Constable Chandan Kumar (PW-2). Chandan Kumar (PW-2) deposed that he was posted as Constable at Police Station Ratanpur. He further deposed that he took the 19 samples from Police Station Ratanpur to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination and delivered that same at FSL, Raipur. 31. (Ex.P-33) is FSL Report. In (Ex.P-33), it is mentioned that the articles were received from Constable No. 10 Chandan Modelerak in sealed condition on 17-04-2007. The relevant part of Ex.P-33 is as under :–– ^^mijksDr fo”k;kafdr ls lacf/kr lhycan 19 iSdsV vkj{kd dz- 10] panu eksMysjd Fkkuk jruiqj }kjk bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 17-04-07 dks izkIr gq;s tks A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R & S ls fpfUgr ik;s x;s rFkk bu ij ikbZ xbZ lhysa] uewuk lhy Fkkuk jruiqj ftyk fcykliqj ds ln`’; ikbZ xbZA It appears that the Ganja was seized and the samples were prepared on 14-04-2007 and the samples were sent to FSL Raipur vide letter of Police Superintendent, Bilaspur dated 16-04-2007 and the same was received in FSL, Raipur on 17-04-2007. It appears that the property was received after 3 days of the seizure. 32. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2011 SC 964 , 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. 32. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2011 SC 964 , 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 . 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." 33. Therefore, mere delay of 3 days in sending the samples to the office of the chemical examiner would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 34. In Ex.-P/33, it is mentioned that:–– ^^ijh{k.k % izn’kZ A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R & S esa ik;s x;s okuLifrd inkFkZ ij vko’;d HkkSfrd] jklk;fud] lw{en’khZ ,oa fFku ys;j] dzksesVksxzkQh ijh{k.k fd;s x;s ftlesa xkats ds ijh{k.k /kukRed ik;s x;sA** 35. The defence has not been able to prove that the seal put on the samples were, in any manner, tampered with before the samples were examined by the Chemical Examiner. There was delay of mere 3 days in sending the samples to FSL, Raipur. The defence has not been able to prove that the seal put on the samples were, in any manner, tampered with before the samples were examined by the Chemical Examiner. There was delay of mere 3 days in sending the samples to FSL, Raipur. It is not proved as to how the aforesaid delay of 3 days affected the same examination when it could not be proved that the seal of the samples were, 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 samples to the Chemical Examiner itself would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 36. Therefore, in the instant case, from the above, it is apparent that provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985 are substantially complied with. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge. 37. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.