JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. : ” This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.2009 and order of conviction dated 7.3.2009 rendered by the learned Special Judge-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No.42-N/7 of 2007, whereby the accused/appellant, Jarnail Singh, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 1.2.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh, the then Investigating Officer, Police Station, Paonta Sahib along with PW2 HC Dev Raj, HC Sunder Singh, PW3 HC Arun Kumar, PW4 Constable Sat Parkash and driver Tejinder Singh proceeded from the Police Station Paonta Sahib towards Behral Barrier after making an entry in the rapat Rojnamcha, Ext.PW6/A. He received a secret information that a truck bearing registration No. HR-58-5680 was coming from Yamuna Nagar side, in which huge quantity of contraband was being transported. This information was reduced into writing by PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh vide Ext.PW4/A and the same was sent to PW7 Padam Chand the then SDPO, Paonta Sahib through Constable PW4 Sat Parkash, which was received by him at about 11.30 p.m. A raiding party was constituted, in which PW1 Om Parkash, Ronki Ram and DW2 Tarsem Singh were associated. At about 11.05 p.m., a truck bearing registration No.HR-58-5680 came from Yamuna Nagar side being driven by the appellant. He was the only person in the truck. The truck was signalled to stop by the police party. The appellant was given option whether he intended to be searched by the Gazetted Officer, the Magistrate or by the police. However, he opted to be searched by the police party vide memo Ext.PW1/C. Thereafter, all the police officials and other members of the raiding party gave their personal search to the appellant vide memo, Ext.PW1/A. On search, from the cabin of the truck eight plastic bags were recovered and on opening the same, these were found to be containing poppy straw. It weighed 200 kgs. It weighed 200 kgs. Two samples weighing 100 grams each were taken from each of the eight bags and all the samples, sixteen in number, were put in separate parcels and sealed with seal impression ' T” . Specimen of the seal was drawn separately vide Ext. PW9/B. The samples were marked 1 to 16 and the bags were also marked 1 to 8. All the sample parcels and the bags containing residue contraband were taken into possession along with truck and its documents vide memo Ext.PW1/B. The spot map Ext.PW9/C was prepared separately. Driving licence of the appellant was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW9/E by the police. NCB form Ext.PW9/A, in triplicate, was filled in at the spot by PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh. Ruqua Ext.PW3/A was prepared, which was sent to the Police Station through PW3 HC Arun Kumar. Thereafter, FIR, Ext.PW10/A was recorded at Police Station Paonta Sahib by PW10 Inspector Narveer Singh and the appellant was arrested.The sample parcels along with bags containing residue contraband, sample seal and NCB form were produced before PW10 Inspector Narveer Singh by PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh. He resealed all the parcels with seal impression ' W” . He also affixed seal impression on NCB form and the specimen of the seal was taken separately vide Ext.PW10/B. Certificate regarding resealing was issued vide Ext.PW10/C. The case property along with necessary documents and sample seals were deposited with PW8 ASI Raghubir Singh, the then In-charge, Malkhana, Police Station Paonta Sahib. On 3.9.2007, eight samples marked 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 along with sample seals and NCB form were sent to FSL Junga vide R.C. No. 183/07 through PW5 Constable Hira Singh, who deposited the same there in safe condition. The special report, Ext.PW7/A was prepared by PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh and was sent to the SDPO, Police Station Paonta Sahib. According to the chemical examiner report, Ext.PW9/F, all samples were found to be of poppy straw. Thereafter, all the codal formalities were completed and the challan was put up against the accused in the Court. 3. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his defence, he examined three witnesses. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. 3. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In his defence, he examined three witnesses. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has vehemently argued that Section 42 of ND&PS Act has not been complied with. He has further argued that the independent witnesses, though available, were not associated. He also argued that vital link evidence was missing to connect the sample with bulk of the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. He lastly contended that on the basis of the report of the Chemical Examiner, it could not be stated that the samples were of poppy straw as the Chemical Examiner had not conducted all the tests to determine the nature of the samples. He lastly contended that it was mandatory for the Chemical Examiner to mention that the contraband was the product of papaver somniferum L. 5. Mr. D.C. Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the impugned judgment dated 7.3.2009 and order of conviction dated 7.3.2009. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record minutely. 7. According to PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh, on 1.2.2007 at about 10.30 p.m., when he along with PW2 HC Dev Raj, HC Sunder Singh, PW3 HC Arun Kumar, PW4 Constable Sat Parkash and driver Tejinder Singh was present at Behral Barrier, he received a secret information that a Truck bearing No.HR-58-5680 was coming from Yamuna Nagar side transporting a huge quantity of contraband. This information was reduced into writing vide memo Ext.PW4/A under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. It was sent through Constable PW4 Sat Parkash to PW7 Padam Chand, SDPO Paonta Sahib. Statement of PW9 Bahadur Singh is duly corroborated by PW2 HC Dev Raj. He has categorically deposed that on 1.2.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. a secret information was received that Truck bearing No. HR-58-5680 was coming from Yamuna Nagar side transporting contraband. Such information was reduced into writing. It was further sent to the SDPO, Paonta Sahib through PW4 Constable Sat Parkash. Similarly, PW4 Sat Parkash deposed that secret information was received that a truck was coming from Yamuna Nagar side carrying contraband. This information was reduced into writing by PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh. Such information was reduced into writing. It was further sent to the SDPO, Paonta Sahib through PW4 Constable Sat Parkash. Similarly, PW4 Sat Parkash deposed that secret information was received that a truck was coming from Yamuna Nagar side carrying contraband. This information was reduced into writing by PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh. It was further sent to SDPO, Paonta Sahib by him. He handed over the information to SDPO Paonta Sahib at 11.30 P.M. at his residence. PW7 Padam Chand, the then SDPO, Paonta Sahib, testified that on 1.2.2007 at about 11.30 p.m., he received information vide Ext.PW4/A under Section 42(2) of the ND & PS Act 1985 through PW4 Constable Sat Parkash, on which he also made the endorsement in red circle. He specifically denied the suggestion that no information was received by him. 8. Besides associating the police officials in the raiding party, after receipt of secret information, PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh also associated PW1 Om Parkash Excise and Taxation Inspector, Ronki Ram Peon and Tarsem Singh, Forest Guard in the raiding party. This fact has also been stated by PW2 HC Dev Raj and PW3 HC Arun Kumar, who were other members of the raiding party. The witness from Excise Department cannot be treated as interested witness. He cannot be held to be under the influence of police. It is evident from the testimony of PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh, PW2 HC Dev Raj and PW3 HC Arun Kumar that when all of them were present at Behral Barrier along with some other police officials, secret information was received and the same was reduced into writing. At about 11.05 p.m. a truck bearing registration No. HR-58-5680 came from Yamnua Nagar side being driven by the appellant. The truck was intercepted. There is no material on record to discredit the testimony of these witnesses. They have given minutes details the manner in which the contraband was recovered from the cabin of the truck and the sampling process was completed. 9. Their Lordships of Hon” ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 4058 have held that mere non-joining of an independent witness cannot cast doubt on prosecution case. ' 6. No dispute has been raised regarding the poppy husk recovered from the jeep or the damaged jeep. 9. Their Lordships of Hon” ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 4058 have held that mere non-joining of an independent witness cannot cast doubt on prosecution case. ' 6. No dispute has been raised regarding the poppy husk recovered from the jeep or the damaged jeep. Further, the appellants did not challenge the result shown in the FSL report wherein the qualitative tests in respect of Meconic Acid, Morphine, Codeine, Thebaine, Papaverine and Narcotine had all been shown as positive. 28. The principle of law laid down hereinabove is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, mere non-joining of an independent witness where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may be found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliance, cannot cast doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution if there seems to be no reason on record to falsely implicate the appellants. 29. In the instant case at the time of incident some villagers had gathered there. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has made it clear that in spite of his best persuasion, none of them were willing to become a witness. Therefore, he could not examine any independent witness. Section 114 of the Act, 1872 gives rise to the presumption that every official act done by the police was regularly performed and such presumption requires rebuttal. The legal maxim omnia praseumuntur rite it dowee probetur in contrarium solenniter esse acta i.e., all the acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly, applies. When acts are of official nature and went through the process of scrutiny by official persons, a presumption arises that the said acts have regularly been performed. In view of the above, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard, are held to be without any substance.' 10. Their Lordships of Hon” ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 841 have held that provisions of Section 42 are intended to provide protection as well as lay down a procedure, which is mandatory and should be followed positively by the Investigating Officer. 11. In the present case, on receipt of secret information, PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh, after reducing the same into writing, had sent ruqua, Ext.PW4/A to PW7 Padam Chand the then SDPO, Paonta Sahib through Constable PW4 Sat Parkash. 11. In the present case, on receipt of secret information, PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh, after reducing the same into writing, had sent ruqua, Ext.PW4/A to PW7 Padam Chand the then SDPO, Paonta Sahib through Constable PW4 Sat Parkash. It is thus, evident from the statements of PW2 HC Dev Raj, PW3 HC Arun Kumar, PW4 Constable Sat Parkash, PW7 Dy.S.P. Padam Chand and PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh that provisions of Section 42 of the Act have been complied with in letter and spirit. 12. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, has relied upon statement of DW2 Tarsem Singh. However, fact of the matter is that DW2 Tarsem Singh has admitted his signatures on recovery memo Ext. PW1/B. It has also come in his testimony that he could read and write Hindi. The recovery memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared in Hindi. 13. It is well settled law that the conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of statements of official witnesses, if there are no major contradictions in their statements and they inspire confidence. 14. The prosecution has proved the link evidence to connect the samples analyzed by the Chemical Examiner with bulk contraband. PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh has given the manner in which sampling process was completed and the seal, after taking specimen of sample seal on NCB form and cloth, was handed over to PW1 Om Parkash. His statement is duly corroborated by PW1 Om Parkash and PW2 HC Dev Raj. These witnesses have categorically deposed that from the eight bags, two samples of poppy straw from each bag, total sixteen in number, were taken. These were put in polythene bags and thereafter, wrapped in a cloth. The samples were sealed with seal impression ' T” and the remaining bulk was also sealed with seal impression ' T” . The specimen impressions of seal were taken on a separate cloth. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled in and the seal after use was handed over to PW1 Om Parkash. PW10 Inspector Narveer Singh had received the case property from PW9 ASI Bahadur Singh. He resealed the case property with seal impression ' W” . He also took specimen of seal vide Ext. PW10/B and after resealing process, issued certificate Ext.PW10/C. Thereafter, he deposited the entire case property along with necessary documents and sample seals with PW8 ASI Raghubir Singh, Incharge of Malkhana. He resealed the case property with seal impression ' W” . He also took specimen of seal vide Ext. PW10/B and after resealing process, issued certificate Ext.PW10/C. Thereafter, he deposited the entire case property along with necessary documents and sample seals with PW8 ASI Raghubir Singh, Incharge of Malkhana. It has also come in the statement of PW8 ASI Raghubir Singh that on 3.2.2007 he had sent samples marked 1,3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 along with sample seal and NCB form to FSL Junga vide RC No.183/07 through PW5 Constable Hira Singh. PW5 Constable Hira Singh has categorically stated that on 3.2.2007 PW8 Raghubir Singh, In-charge of Malkhana, had handed over to him eight sample parcels, which were marked 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15, sealed with six seals of ' T” and three seals of ' W” along with sample seals and NCB form vide RC No.183/07 dated 3.2.2007 for depositing the same with FSL Junga. He deposited the samples with FSL Junga on the same day and obtained the receipt, which was handed over to PW8 ASI Raghubir Singh. According to him, so long as the samples remained in his custody, the same remained intact. The prosecution has duly proved that the samples analyzed by the Chemical Examiner were the same, which were drawn from the recovered contraband. It is duly proved from the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ext. PW9/F that the samples analyzed by the Chemical Examiner were found intact and tallied with the seal impression, were of poppy straw. 15. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Des Raj, 2013 (1) SLC 261 that it was mandatory for the chemical examiner to prove that the contraband was product of papaver somniferum-L. 16. Section 2 (xvii) of the Act defines ' opium poppy' as under: ' Opium poppy' means- (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act. Section 2 (xviii) of the Act defines ' poppy straw' as under:- ' Poppy straw' means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom. 17. In the instant case, the chemical examiner had undertaken various scientific laboratory tests, such as colour tests, chemicals test and chromatographic analysis, with Exhibit Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15, which indicated the presence of morphine, codeine, papaverine and mechanic acid in it. According to him, exhibits marked as 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 were the samples of poppy straw. The appellant has also examined DW3 A.K. Wasuja, Chemical Examiner. He has categorically stated that opium poppy is a part of papaver somniferum L species. He has not mentioned in his report Ext.PW9/F that the plants mentioned in his report were papaver somniferum, parts of somniferum, however, he has mentioned in the data/observation report that all the tests performed confirmed the identification of opium poppy (somniferum papaver species) in the sample. He has denied the suggestion that instruments for the identification of opium poppy (somniferum papaver species) were not available on 19.3.2007 in the FSL, Junga. He has categorically deposed that he had conducted the tests for morphine, codeine, papaverine and meconic acid in order to arrive at conclusion of opium poppy, papaver, somniferum species. He had conducted various tests to arrive at conclusion that the samples were of poppy straw. In Des Raj” s case (supra), the Chemical Examiner had conducted tests only for meconic acid and morphine, whereas in the present case, the Chemical Examiner had conducted tests for morphine, codeine, papaverine and meconic acid to come to conclusion that the exhibits marked as 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 were the samples of poppy straw. In Des Raj” s case (supra), the Chemical Examiner had conducted tests only for meconic acid and morphine, whereas in the present case, the Chemical Examiner had conducted tests for morphine, codeine, papaverine and meconic acid to come to conclusion that the exhibits marked as 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 were the samples of poppy straw. Accordingly, judgment delivered in Des Raj” s (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case and in view of the statement of DW3, A.K. Wasuja read in conjunction with report, Ext.PW9/F, only conclusion, which can be drawn, is that the contraband recovered from the possession of the appellant was product of papaver somniferum-L. Thus, it was not necessary for the chemical examiner to specifically certify in the report, Ext.PW9/F that the contraband was product/part of the papaver somniferum-L. More particularly, when the report Ext. PW9/F remained unchallenged by the appellant. 18. Their Lordships of Hon” ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 4 SCC 510 : ( AIR 2000 SC 3374 ) have held that act of producing, possessing, transporting etc. of poppy husk in contravention of any provision of the Act, rule, order or condition of licence would constitute offence under Section 15. Their Lordships have explained that poppy husk falls within the definition of poppy straw under Section 2 (xviii) of the ND&PS Act. The Lordships have held as under:- ' 14. We are unable to accept the arguments of Mr. Sharma and Mr. Rao. Under Section 15 the offence is in respect of ' poppy straw' . Even though the term ' poppy husk' has not been defined in NDPS Act, the term ' poppy straw' has been defined. The term ' poppy straw' includes all parts (except the seeds) of the ' opium poppy' . ' Opium poppy' means the plant of the species Papaver. Thus except for the seed all other parts of the plant of the species Papaver would fall in the term ' poppy straw' . To be noted that parts of the plant Papaver would fall within the term ' poppy straw' even though no juice has been extracted therefrom. For an offence under Section 15 it is not at all necessary that ' poppy straw' should have been used or made into ' opium' . To be noted that parts of the plant Papaver would fall within the term ' poppy straw' even though no juice has been extracted therefrom. For an offence under Section 15 it is not at all necessary that ' poppy straw' should have been used or made into ' opium' . For cultivation, producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing or exporting inter-State or using opium there is a separate offence provided for under Section 18. If the alleged offence is under Section 18, then the question may arise whether the preparation contained more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine. For an offence under Section 15, question of considering whether the preparation contains more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine does not arise. As seen above even though no juice may have been extracted, so long as it is a Papaver, it would still be ' poppy straw' if it is a part of the plant Papaver. 15. The Modi” s Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology says that a poppy seed is used in foods, sprinkled over sweets and also yields a bland oil, which is used for culinary and lighting purposes. It is because of this that a seed has been excluded from the definition of poppy straw. Poppy seed could be used in food or Indian sweets or made into oil, which is largely used for culinary and lighting purposes only after it is de-husked. Thus the seed would be separated from the husk. The definition of husk as given in Webster” s Dictionary shows that the husk is any covering, especially when it is comparatively worth less. The husk whether it is on the seed or is removed from the seed remains a part of the plant Papaver. In the commentaries on NDPS Act by Mr. P. K. Jain it is set out that crushed capsules of poppy of commonly called ' poppy husk' or ' bhuki' whether extracted or not and that they contain a certain percentage of morphine and are often used as addition producing intoxicants. Thus it would fall within the definition of the term ' poppy straw' , which includes all parts of the plant Papaver. While seed has been specifically excluded husk has not been excluded, from the definition of the term ' poppy straw' . Thus it would fall within the definition of the term ' poppy straw' , which includes all parts of the plant Papaver. While seed has been specifically excluded husk has not been excluded, from the definition of the term ' poppy straw' . Therefore, in our view the producing, possessing, transporting, importing, exporting inter-State, selling, purchasing, using or omitting to warehouse poppy husk would be an offence under Section 15 inasmuch as poppy husk would fall within the term poppy straw as used in that Section.' 19. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, has also argued that the chemical examiner has not given percentage of morphine in his report. 20. In view of the definite law laid down, supra, it was not necessary for the Chemical Examiner to give percentage of morphine being more than 0.2% in poppy straw. 21. Their Lordships of Hon” ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Satrohan, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 313 have held that expressions ' opium' and ' poppy straw' are not interchangeable. Their Lordships have held as under:- ' 7. Section 2(xv) and Section 2(xviii) define ' opium” and ' poppy straws' respectively. It is the stand of the respondent that since there was licence of opium, obviously there is presumption that there was licence of poppy straws. As a matter of fact the High Court did not direct acquittal on the ground that there was licence for poppy straws also. The evidence on record clearly shows that the expressions ' opium' and ' poppy straws' are not interchangeable as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, as Section 2(xiv) clearly makes out a distinction between opium and poppy straws. So far as the role of PW-6 is concerned, it is to be noted that there is no reference to the stand presently highlighted by the High Court. 8. Undisputedly, there are two different entries for opium and poppy straws. Opium appears at Sl. No.92 while poppy straws appear at Sl. No.110. The statement of the accused- respondent in terms of Section 67 throws considerable light on the controversy. In the statement recorded there was no retraction and in fact during examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code” ) while answering question No.4 it was stated that there was no confession. No.110. The statement of the accused- respondent in terms of Section 67 throws considerable light on the controversy. In the statement recorded there was no retraction and in fact during examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code” ) while answering question No.4 it was stated that there was no confession. The confessional statement was recorded on 20.11.1992 and the statement under Section 313 of the Code was recorded on 6.2.1999. Therefore, there has been no retraction at any point of time. The position is also clear from Section 57 of the Code. At the time of production before the Magistrate, there was no allegation of any torture as presently submitted. In this connection a few decisions of this Court need to be noted.' 22. Their Lordships of Hon” ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mai Ram, (2008) 8 SCC 292 have held as under:- ' 11. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the reason for the suspicion was not recorded. So far as the examination of only official witness is concerned, it is to be noted that the only independent witness who was examined to speak about the seizure did not support the prosecution version. No material was brought on record by the defence to discredit the evidence of the official witnesses. The ultimate question is whether the evidence of the official witness suffers from any infirmity. In the instant case nothing of the nature could be pointed out. Further PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated that no other person was willing to depose as witness. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the prosecution version became vulnerable for non-examination of persons who were not official witnesses.' 23. The police had recovered poppy straw weighing 200 kgs from the truck, driven by the appellant. The quantity is more than commercial quantity. The learned trial court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and there is no reason for us to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. 24. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. 24. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.