ORDER : The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.8.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2007 whereby it has affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The expose' of prosecution case is that on 10.7.2005, about 7.00 p.m., the accused-appellant was sitting on two plastic bags near the outer gate of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, and at that time, when questioned by Constable Raj Singh, he could not give satisfactory answer, then in presence of ASI Jagdish Chander the bags were seized, opened and it was found that those bags contained poppy straw powder packed in 36 packets of polythene weighing 72 Kgs. A sample of one kg. was taken and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, after completing the necessary formalities, the prosecution laid the charge-sheet before the learned trial Judge. 3. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge examined number of witnesses and got documents exhibited. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence. 4. Before the learned trial Judge, it was contended that mandatory requirements of the NDPS Act, as contained in Section 50, had not been complied with and the evidence on record did not establish the involvement of the accused in the crime. The trial Judge, analysing the evidence on record, came to hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused and, accordingly, convicted and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore. 5. The trial Judge, analysing the evidence on record, came to hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused and, accordingly, convicted and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore. 5. In appeal before the High Court, it was contended that there are material contradictions in the deposition of witnesses which creates a doubt in the story of the prosecution; that the investigating agency has deliberately not cited any independent witness from the public though the alleged search was conducted at a public place and such non- examination of the independent witness vitiates the trial; that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband articles and he was aware about the contents of the bags; and that there was non- compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as he was not apprised of his right to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The High Court dealt with the submissions in extensive manner and came to hold that the bags belonged to the accused and he was in conscious possession of the bags and he had not given any satisfactory answer pertaining to the contents; that there are no material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that the investigating agency had made an effort to involve the independent witness in the proceeding, but as there was non- cooperation, no fault can be found with the investigation and hence, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown overboard on that ground; that there was no justification to disbelieve the factum of recovery of contraband articles which has been proven by the evidence of the official witnesses; and that there has been no violation of mandatory provision. Being of this view, the High Court gave the stamp of approval to the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. 6. Though none has appeared on behalf of the appellant, yet we have proceeded to deal with the appeal as similar grounds have been urged in this appeal and the issues are not more res integra. We have also perused the evidence with the assistance of Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Though none has appeared on behalf of the appellant, yet we have proceeded to deal with the appeal as similar grounds have been urged in this appeal and the issues are not more res integra. We have also perused the evidence with the assistance of Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-State. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is noticeable that the accused-appellant was found with the bags and on seeing the police party he tried to run away, however, he was over powered. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court, after analysing the evidence in the microscopic manner, has come to hold that the accused-appellant was in conscious possession of the poppy straw powder and we see no reason to differ with the same. As far as non-examination of any other witness except the official witnesses is concerned, it is perceptible that an effort has been made to bring in the independent witnesses but all efforts have gone in vain as the people at the place did not cooperate. It is worthy to note that the evidence adduced by the official witnesses is absolutely unimpeachable and there is no reason to discard the same. It has been held by this Court in Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar, III (2006) CCR 235 (SC) : VI (2006) SLT 129, that there is no reason to hold that non-examination of the independent witnesses would always affect the prosecution case. 7. As far as applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, 36 packets of poppy straw powder weighing 72 Kgs. have been seized from two bags. It has not been seized from the person of the accused-appellant. Thus, the ground urged that mandatory provision, as contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act, has been violated has no legs to stand upon. The said view of ours gets support from the pronouncements in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, III (2010) SLT 98 : II (2010) DLT (Crl.) 277 (SC). 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we perceive no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.