Karam Chand Puri, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 16.02.2009 passed by Shri J.S., Bhatia, Judge, Special Court, Mansa vide which the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short - the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 23.08.2007 a police party headed by Inspector Balwinder Singh, Incharge CIA Staff, Mansa, in official vehicle No. PB-31-C-9347 being driven by HC Yadwinder Singh, in connection with patrolling and checking of suspects and vehicles was present at bus stand of village Khara when ASI Sukhdev Singh told him that he has received secret information against accused Lakha Singh and Kuldip Singh (Proclaimed Offender) to the effect that they indulge in business of poppy husk at a large scale and even today they would go in trolla bearing registration No. PB-11R-6198 from the side of Haryana towards Sangrur side after passing through the area of Boha and village Heero Kalan, Khillan and if naka i.e. picketing is held at canal bridge of Heerawala to Khara road they could be apprehended and huge quantity of poppy husk could be recovered from their possession. On the basis of this secret information, Inspector Balwinder Singh, 10 sent ruqa to the police station through Constable Pal Singh on the basis of which a formal FIR was recorded at police station Sadar Mansa. Inspector Balwinder Singh sent Q.S.T. to Police Control Room, Mansa for sending some gazetted officer on the spot and thereafter held naka i.e. picketing of canal minor bridge in the area of village Heerawala where PW Bawa Singh came and was associated with the police party. DSP Manjinder Singh also reached on the spot. During nakabandi i.e. picketing a trolla No. PB-1 l-R-6198 came from opposite side, which was got stopped. Accused Lakha Singh was driving the said trolla. DSP Manjinder Singh also reached on the spot. During nakabandi i.e. picketing a trolla No. PB-1 l-R-6198 came from opposite side, which was got stopped. Accused Lakha Singh was driving the said trolla. DSP Manjinder Singh disclosed his identity to the accused and told him that he suspect some intoxicating substance in the trolla and search is to be conducted but he has legal right of search from him or in the presence of some other gazetted officer or Magistrate or he could be taken before them. Accused consented for search before DSP Manjinder Singh and reposed confidence in him. On this DSP Manjinder Singh prepared consent memo of the accused in this regard which was thumb marked by him and attested by ASI Sukhdev Singh and PW Bawa Singh. On the directions of DSP Manjinder Singh, Inspector Balwinder Singh, IO conducted search of the trolla and 375 bags of rice flakes i.e. Broken rice and further 15 bags containing poppy husk were recovered from it. Out of each bag of poppy husk 100 gm was separated as sample and converted into 15 separate parcels. On weighment, each bag containing remaining poppy husk came to 30 kg. All the sample parcels and the gunny bags containing remaining poppy husk were sealed by Inspector Balwinder Singh with his seal bearing impression BS. Sample seal chit was separately prepared and seal after use was handed over to PW Bawa Singh. The gunny bags were marked from A to O and sample parcels were marked from A1 to O1. The aforesaid case property was taken into possession by Inspector Balwinder Singh, IO vide recovery memo Ex. P9 attested by DSP Manjinder Singh, ASI Sukhdev Singh and PW Bawa Singh. The above said 375 bags of rice flakes i.e. broken rice alongwith bill No. 3166 dated 19.08.2007 issued by M/s. Goel Good Products in respect of 375 bags of rice flakes, one GR i.e. goods receipt and other documents were also taken into possession by Inspector Balwinder Singh IO vide separate memo Ex. P10 attested by DSP Manjinder Singh and aforesaid witnesses. On personal search of accused Lakha Singh currency notes of Rs. 550/- were recovered which were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. P11 thumb marked by the accused and attested by aforesaid PWs. Accused was arrested. P10 attested by DSP Manjinder Singh and aforesaid witnesses. On personal search of accused Lakha Singh currency notes of Rs. 550/- were recovered which were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. P11 thumb marked by the accused and attested by aforesaid PWs. Accused was arrested. He also prepared rough site plan of place on recovery with correct marginal notes and further recorded statements of the witnesses. On return to police station Sadar Mansa, Inspector Balwinder Singh IO produced the accused and case property before SHO/SI Harpal Singh, who further sealed the case property with his seal bearing impression HS. He also affixed his seal on sample seal chit and took the case property in his possession, vide memo Ex. P2 attested by Inspector Balwinder Singh. On the next day, SI Harpal Singh produced the accused and case property in the court of CJM Mansa along with inventory report and request. After producing the case property in court, he deposited the same except for sample parcels and sample seal chit in Judicial Malkhana. He sent sample parcel to the office of FSL Punjab, Chandigarh on 28.08.2007 through C. Harkirat Singh. After receipt of report of FSL, and completion of formal investigation, challan against the accused was presented in court. 2. On presentation of challan, copies of documents were supplied to accused free of costs as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,. 1985 was framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In support of the case prosecution examined P.W. 1 Constable Harkirat Singh, PW2 SI Harpal Singh, PW3 Inspector Balwinder Singh, PW4 DSP Manjinder Singh Chauhan and thereafter learned Addl. PP for the state closed the prosecution evidence. 4. After the closure of prosecution evidence all the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused were put to accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded his innocence. He pleaded that no incriminating article was recovered from him. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2009, as aforesaid. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.02.2009, accused has directed the present appeal. 7. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence. 5. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2009, as aforesaid. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16.02.2009, accused has directed the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, which vitiates the trial. It is further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession. It is stated that 15 bags of poppy husk were carried in the trolla by appellant. From the evidence on the file, it is revealed that there were 375 more bags of rice flakes. The driver cannot check each and every bag while loading the material on the trolla. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that link evidence is missing in the present case as the official, who has taken the sample has not been produced. So, there is every possibility of tampering with the sample. In order to fortify his claim, counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following authorities:-- "(i) Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2002 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 180; (ii) State of Punjab v. Hari Singh reported in 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 143; (iii) Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 515; (iv) Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 681; (v) Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2005(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 520 and (vi) Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujrat reported in 2000 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 611." 9. The learned State counsel has supported the judgment and order of the trial Court. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case with their above assistance. 11. So far as the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant that link evidence is missing, the same is without any merit. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Constable Harkirat Singh, who has proved his affidavit Ex. P1. The report of Chemical Examiner also suggests that the seals were intact in respect of the sample. So, the above said argument is without any substance. 12. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Constable Harkirat Singh, who has proved his affidavit Ex. P1. The report of Chemical Examiner also suggests that the seals were intact in respect of the sample. So, the above said argument is without any substance. 12. So far as the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act is concerned, that submission is also without any substance. Ruka was sent from the spot narrating all the facts and on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded and copy thereof were also sent to the Illaqua Magistrate. In authority Bahadur Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) page 586 (S.C.), Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the ruka is sent from the spot and DSP has been called for, in that case, it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act. 13. So far as the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession is concerned, that submission is without any substance. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act state that in case the contraband is found in possession of the accused, in that case, the accused has to explain under which circumstances the contraband was in his possession. Accused has also been convicted in other case under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for a period of two years. 14. From the custody certificate, it is revealed that the accused was allowed concession of parole and he has not surrendered thereafter and has absconded. So, the conduct of the appellant is not also above board. 15. Authorities Avtar Singh's case (supra) Karnail Singh's case (supra) and Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri's case (supra) are distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In one of the authorities five persons were travelling in the truck and under those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted the accused on the ground of conscious possession. However, in the present case, the accused was in possession and in control of the truck being driven by him and as such it cannot be said that accused was not in conscious possession. 16. Authorities State of Punjab v. Hari Singh's case (supra) and Bhola Singh's case (supra) are also distinguishable on the same grounds as discussed above. 17. However, in the present case, the accused was in possession and in control of the truck being driven by him and as such it cannot be said that accused was not in conscious possession. 16. Authorities State of Punjab v. Hari Singh's case (supra) and Bhola Singh's case (supra) are also distinguishable on the same grounds as discussed above. 17. Authority Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, search of the accused was conducted in the presence of DSP, who was an adhoc promotee and no gazette notification was issued by that time. There was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act also, in that case. So, the facts of that case are also distinguishable. 18. No other point has been urged or raised before me. 19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 20. The accused is stated to be on bail. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. A copy of this order be conveyed to the trial Court for strict compliance.