JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act)/ 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2010 whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo 1 year additional simple imprisonment under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 25.11.2009, SHO J.C. Pathak (PW3) along with SI Mahendra Singh PW1, Constable Preetam Singh, Constable Jagdev Singh & Constable Sunil Kumar, vide report no. 1,00,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo 1 year additional simple imprisonment under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 25.11.2009, SHO J.C. Pathak (PW3) along with SI Mahendra Singh PW1, Constable Preetam Singh, Constable Jagdev Singh & Constable Sunil Kumar, vide report no. 4 at 05.30 a.m., left the police station for combing and searching the suspects; when police party reached near Kata Pathar, appellant was seen coming from the side of Kata Pathar towards Baadwala with a bag hanging on his back; having seen the police party, appellant set towards jungle, as if, he was urinating; police party asked him to come out, he, however, instead of coming, started running inside the forest; he was chased and ultimately, apprehended by the police at 07.45 a.m., 500 metres inside the forest; on being asked, appellant disclosed his identity and address and told the police party that he was carrying 6½ kg of charas and was going to sell the same in Chandigarh; PW3 told the appellant, if he wish, he could be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, as it was his right, however, appellant told the police party that since he had already been apprehended by them, therefore, he had no objection to be searched by the police party; on this, police party searched each other and having satisfied that none of them was having any contraband, took search of bag hanging on the back of the appellant; after opening the bag, two polythene bags were found and on opening them, it was found that both the polythene bags were containing charas; Constable Preetam Singh was sent to bring weighing scale and on being weighed, 6.250 kg of charas was found in both the polythene bags; appellant was informed by the police party that since he was carrying charas without having any valid license or permission, therefore, he was being arrested; from contraband, so recovered, 100 gms of charas was taken out, as sample; contraband along with bag and sample of charas were kept in separate sealed covers under the seal and signature of PW3; contraband, sample, sample seal and appellant were brought to the police station; since appellant was found, all of sudden, carrying charas and area was near the forest, therefore, no independent public witness was found. 3. Investigation was handed over to PW5 Arvind Kumar, who having investigated the matter, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. After committal of the case, trial court was pleased to frame charges against appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 SI Mahendra Singh, PW2 Constable Manoj Kumar, PW3 Inspector J.C. Pathak, PW4 Constable Neelam Das and PW5 Inspector Arvind Kumar were examined and thereafter, statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. From the side of defence, DW1 Raj Kumar was examined. 6. Having perused the entire material made available on record, learned trial court was pleased to convict & sentence the appellant, vide judgment and order under appeal. 7. I have heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Additional GA for the State and have carefully perused the record. 8. PW1 SI Mahendra Singh and PW3 Inspector J.C. Pathak, supported the prosecution story, as narrated in the chick FIR. Both of them stated that having obtained consent from the appellant, on the spot, in writing; bag was taken from the appellant and on opening it, two polythene bags were found therein, containing charas. It was also stated by both the witnesses that on being weighed, charas was found to be of 6.250 kg and therefrom, 100 gms. of charas was taken out, as sample and kept in a seal cover; search and seizure memo, arrest memo were prepared on the spot, contraband along with bag and sample were kept in sealed covers under the seal and signature of PW3. Thereafter, sample seal was prepared on the spot and bag containing the contraband and sample of charas were brought to the police station. They further stated that since the place wherefrom appellant was apprehended and searched was a lonely place in the forest area, therefore, police personnel could not find any independent public witness. Both the witnesses further stated that about the seizure of contraband and arrest of the appellant, information was immediately sent to the superior officers through wireless set as well as on telephone. 9. Both the witnesses further stated that about the seizure of contraband and arrest of the appellant, information was immediately sent to the superior officers through wireless set as well as on telephone. 9. PW5 Inspector Arvind Kumar, Investigating Officer, stated that on the very next day i.e. on 26.11.2009, he went on the spot and prepared a sketch map of the site. He further stated that sample, so prepared by PW1 and PW3 on the spot, was sent for chemical examination to FSL after obtaining permission from the Special Judge (NDPS Act) vide order dated 26.11.2009; sample was sent through PW4 Constable Neelam Das; having received the chemical examination report, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. 10. Constable PW4 Neelam Das stated that sample was handed over to him under the seal and signature of Special Judge (NDPS Act) on 26.11.2009 and he delivered the same, in intact condition to FSL Dehradun on the same day i.e. on 26.11.2009. 11. PW2 Constable Manoj Kumar, while appearing in the witness box, stated that contraband, so recovered, sample of the contraband, sample seal prepared on the spot, were kept in the Maalkhana and he made entries thereof in the Maalkhana Register. He also produced the Maalkhana Register (Exhibit A 9) on the trial court’s record. 12. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Sr. Advocate, argued that first of all, there was no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and secondly, in absence of independent public witness, sanctity of seizure of contraband and arrest of the appellant seems to be highly doubtful. She further agued that it is not proved on the record, as to when information about search and seizure of contraband from the appellant was forwarded to the superior officers and therefore, there is absolutely no compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2010 (3) SCC 746 , having placed reliance on earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has reiterated that provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are applicable only in the case of personal search of the accused and the same are not applicable when the contraband is recovered either from the briefcase or bag or vehicle. 14. 14. Since in the present case, contraband was recovered from the bag hanging on the back of the appellant, therefore, provision of Section 50 NDPS cannot be pressed in service. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajmer Singh (supra) in para 19 has held as under: “19. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the official witness cannot be relied upon as their testimony, has not been corroborated by any independent witness. We are unable to agree with the said submission of the learned Counsel. It is clear from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW-3 Paramjit Singh Ahalwat, D.S.P., Pehowa, PW-4 Raja Ram, Head Constable and PW-5 Maya Ram, which is on record, that efforts were made by the investigating party to include independent witness at the time of recovery, but none was willing. It is true that a charge under the Act is serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is acquitted merely because no independent witness has been produced.” 16. In the present case, PW1 and PW3, in so many words, stated that since it was morning time and place wherefrom appellant was arrested, was 500 metres inside the forest area, therefore, no independent public witness was available. In my opinion, reason for no independent public witness seems to be properly explained. 17. PW1 & PW3 in so many words stated that soon after reaching to the police station, information was sent to the superior officers on wireless set, on this point, there was absolutely no cross examination. 18. In view of the statement of PW4 and PW5 that sample was sent in intact sealed condition, through PW4 to FSL Dehradun on 26.11.2009 and the same was delivered on the same day to FSL, Dehradun and in view of production of proper entry of Maalkhana Register, in my considered opinion, link evidence has also proved the prosecution story. 19. In view of the statement of PW4 and PW5 that sample was sent in intact sealed condition, through PW4 to FSL Dehradun on 26.11.2009 and the same was delivered on the same day to FSL, Dehradun and in view of production of proper entry of Maalkhana Register, in my considered opinion, link evidence has also proved the prosecution story. 19. Not only this, FSL report (Exhibit A13) also reveals that sample in a sealed and intact condition was received by FSL, Dehradun and seals were tallied with the specimen seal and were found in intact condition. Statement of PW4 stands corroborated by the FSL report. 20. It has also not been suggested that as to what was the enmity between the appellant and police personnel to falsely implicate the appellant. In view of the above discussion, in my considered opinion, there is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed. Appellant is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Registry is directed to forward copy of this judgment to the court below for compliance along with lower court record.