JUDGMENT : Tapash Mookherjee, J. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.05.2008 and 27.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter described in short as N.D.P.S. Act. Cooch Behar in G.R. Case No. 148 of 2007, convicting thereby the Appellants under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. The facts behind, stated briefly, are as follows:- 3. On 10.04.2007, S.I. Sanjay Dutta, Officer-in-Charge of Tufanganj P.S. District Cooch Behar received a secret information from his source that the present Appellants of Arampur under Balarampur-I under P.S. Tufanganj, Dist.- Cooch Behar, were likely to carry huge quantum of `Ganja' to the house of one Dilip Das at Sansan Road, village Kamat Fulbari (Dakshin) for the purpose of trading. S.I., Dutta immediately recorded the fact in the General Diary of the Police Station and thereafter he along with other police personnel rushed to the aforesaid place and kept the place under strict vigil and during such watch found the Appellants entering the house of one Dilip Das. S.I., Dutta, therefore, followed the Appellants and entered the house of the said Dilip Das with others accompanying him and having entered the house they noticed the Appellants packing `Ganja' in a big plastic sheet and during the raid they found the owner of the house, Dilip Das, having managed to escape from the place and on interrogation of the Appellants they came to know that the Appellants had procured the goods from Balarampur and planned to sell the goods after packaging, through Dilip Das. The Appellants failed to account for their possession of the contraband goods. S.I., Dutta sent a requisition for the presence of an Executive Magistrate for the purpose of seizure of the contraband goods. In response to such requisition the local B.D.O. reached the spot promptly. A photographer was also called for and in presence of the local B.D.O. the raiding team as well the two neutral persons of the locality, contraband goods were seized through a seizure list prepared on the spot. Sample had been separated and preserved and labels were pasted on the packets of the samples as well as the seized contraband goods. After completion of all the aforesaid acts of search and seizure S.I., Dutta returned to the Police Station with the seized contraband goods and samples etc. Sample had been separated and preserved and labels were pasted on the packets of the samples as well as the seized contraband goods. After completion of all the aforesaid acts of search and seizure S.I., Dutta returned to the Police Station with the seized contraband goods and samples etc. and the Appellants in custody, as well, and lodged a suo motu complaint against the Appellants in the Police Station, on the basis of which Tufanganj P.S. Case No. 29 of 2007, dated 10.04.2007 under provisions in N.D.P.S. Act had been started against the Appellants. Thereafter, the case was handed over to S.I., Asit Deb Singh of Tufanganj P.S. for investigation. The investigation continued and after completion of investigation charge-sheet had been submitted against the Appellants under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. Considering the materials collected during the investigation charges under Section 20 (b) and under Section 27A. of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had been framed against all the Appellants. 5. All the Appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. Plea of innocence was the only defence case of the Appellants. 7. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Prosecution also proved some documents and produced and identified the seized contraband goods and some other articles also. The Appellants did not tender any evidence whatsoever, in their support. 8. Learned Advocate for the Appellants has argued that the alleged seizure of `Ganja' from the Appellants has not been proved by any cogent evidence by the prosecution and that the mandatory provisions of search and seizure prescribed in the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with also and hence learned Trial Court committed gross error in law by convicting the Appellants to the charge under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing the Appellants for such offence. 9. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal obviously disputed the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants. 10. S.I., Sanjoy Dutta (P.W.-1), was posted as the O.C. Tufanganj P.S. at the relevant time. 9. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal obviously disputed the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants. 10. S.I., Sanjoy Dutta (P.W.-1), was posted as the O.C. Tufanganj P.S. at the relevant time. In his evidence he stated that on 10.04.2007 having received an information to the effect that some quantum of `Ganja' was likely to be transported to the house of one Dilip Das by some unknown persons, recorded the fact in the General Diary Book of the Police Station and thereafter, he alongwith Circle Inspector, Tapan Chattapadhyay, S.I. Ashitdeb Singha, Constable Gopal Sarkar and A.S.I. Keshab Chandra Das went to the village Dakshin Kamatfulbari where they positioned themselves in a hideout and from there they noticed three persons entering the house of one Dilip Das with two plastic packets in their hands and thereafter, they immediately rushed inside that house. S.I., Dutta further stated that having entered the house of Dilip Das they found three persons packaging `Ganja' and he identified the present Appellants as those three persons. He further added that the owner of the house one Dilip Das somehow managed to escape. 11. He stated further that having found the aforesaid incidence he sent a requisition to the local S.D.O. for deputing a Magistrate and he also sent for a photographer and after the local B.D.O. who was also a Deputy Magistrate, named B. Kujur and a photographer came to the spot and in their presence he seized the `Ganja' weighed it, preserved the sample separately, prepared a seizure list and pasted labels on the seized goods as well as on samples in presence of the local B.D.O., the photographer, the police personnel accompanying him and two neutral and local witnesses. He also stated that after all the actions of search and seizure had been completed on the spot, he went to the Police Station with the Appellants under custody and the seized goods and recorded all those facts in the G.D. of the P.S. and submitted a written complaint. S.I. Dutta proved his written complaint, seizure list and other documents prepared by him in the case. 12. S.I. Dutta proved his written complaint, seizure list and other documents prepared by him in the case. 12. Constable Gopal Sarkar (P.W.-4), in his evidence supported P.W.- 1 by saying that on 10.04.2007, he accompanied the O.C., Tufanganj P.S. and other police personnel to village Kamatfulbari and they found three persons, i.e., the present Appellants packaging `Ganja' in the house of Dilip Das. He further stated that they had apprehended the Appellants in that house and some quantum of `Ganja' weighing about 15.280 Kg had been recovered and seized from there. He further stated that the local B.D.O. and a Cameraman also came on the spot, and seizure was done in their presence. 13. A.S.I., K.C. Das (P.W.-8), also stated that on 10.04.2007 he accompanied O.C. of the P.S. to the house of one Dilip Das at village Kamatpur where they found three persons packaging `Ganja' and arrested them on the spot. He identified the Appellants Nitai Barman and Paritosh Barman to be amongst those three persons found on the spot. He further stated that he had called a photographer and one Executive Magistrate also came there and in their presence photograph of the Appellants were taken and the articles recovered, were `Ganja' which had been seized on the spot. 14. P.W.-4 and P.W.-8 had not signed on the seizure list. 15. S.I., Asitdeb Singha (P.W.-10), stated that on 10.04.2007 he alongwith other police personnel raided the house of one Dilip Das at Kamatfulbari where they found three persons packaging `Ganja' and he identified the Appellants Nitai Barman and Paritosh Barman as two of those three persons. He further stated that on request of the O.C., B.D.O. came to the spot and the `Ganja' had been seized and weighed. He had done some acts of investigation also as stated by him. 16. B.S. Kujur (P.W.-6), was posted as the B.D.O. at Tufanganj Block. On 10.04.2007 she was a Deputy Magistrate as well as an Executive Magistrate as claimed by her. She stated that on 10.04.2007 having received a requisition from the S.D.O., Sanjoy Sarkar, she went to the house of one Dilip Das at village Kamatfulbari, where she found Circle Inspector, O.C. Tufanganj P.S. and some other police personnel. She further stated that she found three persons in that house, and some quantum of `Ganja' lying on a plastic sheet which had been seized by the police in her presence. She further stated that she found three persons in that house, and some quantum of `Ganja' lying on a plastic sheet which had been seized by the police in her presence. She also stated that the `Ganja' recovered, had been weighed and sample was separated and she had put her signatures in the seizure list as well as labels pasted in the seized articles and samples. She had proved her signatures in the said seizure list and labels. She also identified the plastic bag on which the `Ganja' was found lying. She further stated that photographs had been taken on the spot in her presence and her face did appear on the photograph (Exhibit-II collectively). During the concluding part of her examination-in-chief she categorically stated that everything done on the spot had been done in her presence and during her cross-examination she again reiterated that the search and seizure had been conducted in her presence. 17. Nirmal Das (P.W.-2), denied to have any direct knowledge about the alleged seizure, although he had identified his signatures on the seizure list as well as the labels pasted in the seized articles. He was declared `Hostile' by the prosecution and during his cross-examination by the defence he stated that he had no knowledge as to why his signatures had been obtained on those documents. 18. Anowar Hossain (P.W.-3), was a resident of the village Kamatfulbari residing near to the house of Dilip Das. He stated that a few months before his deposition, one day, in the evening, he found some police personnel in the house of Dilip Das and police had procured his signatures on 3/4 sheets and he identified those signatures which were on the material exhibits. He denied having any other knowledge regarding the facts in issue. He was also declared `Hostile' by the prosecution. 19. Nepal Das (P.W.-5), is the owner of a grocery shop at the village of the incident. He stated that as per the request of the O.C. of the local P.S. he had, one day, delivered to the O.C. an electronic weighing machine. He denied having any other knowledge regarding the facts in issue and he was declared `Hostile' by the prosecution, for such reason. 20. S.I. Hemanta Kumar Sarma (P.W.-7), completed investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet as claimed by him. 21. Subrata Modak (P.W.-9), was a professional photographer. He denied having any other knowledge regarding the facts in issue and he was declared `Hostile' by the prosecution, for such reason. 20. S.I. Hemanta Kumar Sarma (P.W.-7), completed investigation of the case and submitted charge-sheet as claimed by him. 21. Subrata Modak (P.W.-9), was a professional photographer. He stated that one Keshab Das (P.W.-8) called him to the house of Dilip Das at village Kamatfulbari and he had taken some photographs of `Ganja' and he identified those photographs and the negatives which had been marked Exhibit-11. 22. All the witnesses to the alleged search and seizure stated that the house they searched and from where `Ganja' had been recovered belonged to one Dilipn Das, but the said Dilip Das has neither been arrested and made an accused in the case, nor has he been examined by the prosecution as a witness in the case. 23. Learned Advocate for the Appellants emphatically argued that the absence of Dilip Das either as an accused or a witness in the case, itself shows that there was no search of the house of Dilip Das and recovery of `Ganja' from the said house as claimed by the prosecution. In reply, learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal argued that it was a laches on the part of the prosecution and for such laches on the part of the prosecution, the prosecution case, as a whole, should not be disbelieved. Dilip Das was not found present in the house from where the `Ganja' had been allegedly seized. The witnesses in the seizure stated that Dilip Das somehow managed to escape. In such circumstances, Dilip Das might have been implicated in the case. But just because he had not been added as an accused or cited as a witness, the entire prosecution case does not fail. 24. The next point raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellants was that the versions of the policemen regarding the search and seizure have not been supported by the two neutral witnesses, i.e., P.W.-2 and 3 and in absence of any support from the neutral witnesses examined in the case, the version of the police witnesses should not be blindly accepted. On the point, the reply of the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal was that there is no mandatory rule to disbelieve the policemen always. 25. On the point, the reply of the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal was that there is no mandatory rule to disbelieve the policemen always. 25. P.W.- 2, identified his signatures on all the relevant documents although he stated that police had taken his signatures on blank papers, and as such, he was declared `Hostile' by the prosecution. Similarly, P.W.-3 identified his signatures on the relevant documents but claimed that he did not know as to why he had put his signatures on those papers. It should be noted here that P.W.-3 categorically stated that he found police personnel in the house of Dilip Das on the day of the occurrence when he had put his signatures on some documents. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was never any raid in the house of Dilip Das claimed by the prosecution. There is no such rule of evidence that corroboration to the statements of the police witnesses have to be always sought from the neutral persons. The aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants is not, therefore, acceptable. It should be noted here that there is nothing on record to show that there was ever any enmity between the Appellants in one hand and the police persons deposing in the case on the other hand. No such enmity has been suggested even by the Appellants during the evidence of the police witnesses. We, therefore, find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the police witnesses. 26. P.W.-6, the Executive Magistrate in her Examination-in-Chief stated that she found `Ganja' lying on the floor of the house where she had visited on requisition by the police. Taking cue from such statement, learned Advocate for the Appellants argued that since the `Ganja' were found lying on the floor the Appellants cannot be held responsible for its possession. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal submitted that the contention is wrong in law. 27. P.W.-6, in her examination-in-chief identified her signatures in the seizure list, in the labels allegedly pasted on the sample and a plastic packet and she added that everything had been done by the police in her presence. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal submitted that the contention is wrong in law. 27. P.W.-6, in her examination-in-chief identified her signatures in the seizure list, in the labels allegedly pasted on the sample and a plastic packet and she added that everything had been done by the police in her presence. In cross-examination she further clarified that police had searched and seized the contraband articles in her presence and thereafter she had put her signature in the seizure list on request by the police. From the photographs allegedly taken on the spot, it is found that the Appellants were sitting in front and touching the articles in question and P.W.-6 writing something on a paper (Exhibit- 11). P.W.-6, during her Examination-in-Chief identified those photographs and added further that her image and face did appear on those photographs. From all the aforesaid evidence considered together, it is clear that the articles seized were under the physical control of the Appellants. P.W.-6, in her evidence-in-chief stated that one Saikat Das accompanied her to the spot. The said Saikat Das had not been examined and according to the learned Advocate for the Appellants, withholding of such an important witness speaks against the prosecution case. Saikat Das, had not taken over charge of Deputy Magistrate on the day of the incident as stated by P.W.-1 and so, he had not participated in any act also. He was not at all an important witness in the case, especially when the Deputy Magistrate holding the office on the day of the incident herself had been examined in the case. 28. The further contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants was that the seized articles had not been kept in safe custody as required by law and the delay in sending the samples to the F.S.L. had not been properly explained. So, interference into the samples allegedly taken from the seized articles cannot be ruled out. 29. P.W.-1, stated that after return to the Police Station he kept the articles in question in the Malkhana of the P.S. and handed over all the articles to the I.O. and extract of the Malkhana register has been produced (Exhibit- 9) which support the contention. 30. 29. P.W.-1, stated that after return to the Police Station he kept the articles in question in the Malkhana of the P.S. and handed over all the articles to the I.O. and extract of the Malkhana register has been produced (Exhibit- 9) which support the contention. 30. From the F.S.L. report (Exhibit-X) it is found that the seals on the packets sent there in connection with the present case, i.e., Tufanganj P.S. case No. 29 of 2007, dated 10.04.2007 were found intact and that the samples had been received there on 16.04.2007. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal argued that Tufanganj is a remote place in District Cooch Behar, so it took some time to depute someone from the Police Station to carry the sample packets from Tufanganj to Calcutta Availability of Railway ticket was also a problem. So the six days delay is not unreasonable. We accept the explanation of the prosecution on the point. It should be also noted here that according to the learned Advocate for the Appellants non-examination of the Officer of the F.S.L. submitting the report is a serious laches of the prosecution in the case. Needless to mention that the F.S.L. report had been admitted in the evidence under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. So, it is difficult to accept the contentions of the learned Advocate for the Appellants on the point. 31. P.W.-1, could not say as to what quantum of `Ganja' had been seized from which of the Appellants and learned Advocate for the Appellants argued that this is a serious fault in the prosecution case. It was not the case of the prosecution that there were separate seizures from the three Appellants, on the contrary, it was the case of the prosecution that the Appellants had been packaging the total quantum of the contraband goods when they had been apprehended. From the photographs taken on the spot (Exhibit-11) it is further found that the entire goods seized had been mixed up before seizure. So, the aforesaid contention is not, at all, acceptable. 32. The other contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants was that the mandatory provisions in Section 42(2) and Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act had not been complied with. So, the conviction was illegal. So, the aforesaid contention is not, at all, acceptable. 32. The other contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants was that the mandatory provisions in Section 42(2) and Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act had not been complied with. So, the conviction was illegal. He cited two decisions, in his support, one reported in 2011 (4) Crimes 26 (S.C.) and the other reported in 2012 (4) Crimes 687 (Chhatt). 33. In reply, learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal argued that Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act had been complied with and Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has no application in the case. 34. According to Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act whenever an officer authorised to enter search or seize and arrest without warrant or authorisation, records any information in writing regarding the commission of any offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, he shall within 72 hours, send a copy of such information to his immediate official superior. From the evidence of P.W. 1, 4, 6 and 8, it is found that the Circle Inspector was in the raiding team. P.W.-1, was O.C. of the Tufanganj P.S. and he had recorded the information in the G.D. Book of the P.S. Circle Inspector was his immediate superior. The Circle Inspector has been definitely informed about the information otherwise he should not have been present from the beginning of the raid as claimed by P.W.-1 and other witnesses of seizure, as well, the provision in Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act had, therefore, been strictly complied with. The fact that the Circle Inspector present during the raid has not been examined in the case as a witness, makes no difference. 35. Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that whenever a person is suspected of possessing any prohibited article under the N.D.P.S. Act such person should be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate if such person demands so. The provision is applicable in the case of search of a person only. The present case is a case of search of a place. So, the aforesaid provision is not attracted in the case. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the entire act of search and seizure had been conducted in presence of P.W.-6 who was a Magistrate as well as a Gazetted Officer. So, there was no violation of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act in the case. So, the aforesaid provision is not attracted in the case. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the entire act of search and seizure had been conducted in presence of P.W.-6 who was a Magistrate as well as a Gazetted Officer. So, there was no violation of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act in the case. The decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellants and mentioned above have, therefore, no application in the present case. 36. P.W.-7, submitted charge-sheet in the case after completion of investigation as stated by him. In one place of his cross-examination he stated "I have submitted charge-sheet without any basis" and according to learned Advocate for the Appellants the aforesaid statement of P.W.-7 is fatal for the prosecution case. In reply, learned Advocate for the Respondent/State of West Bengal argued that the aforesaid statement of P.W.-7 was either a slip of tongue of the witness or a typographical mistake. He submitted further that the statement in question had been made at the concluding part when suggestions are generally put to the witness and as such the words "not a fact" had been accidentally omitted while recording the evidence. 37. Statements of a witness should always be considered as a whole and no part of the statements of a witness should be considered in isolation. It should be noted that immediately before the statement referred to above, P.W.-7 stated that "Ganja was recovered from the house of Dilip Das but he had neither been made the said Dilip Das as an accused nor had he cited Dilip Das as a witness." During his examination-in-chief he further stated that he visited the P.O. and collected the F.S.L. report. In this context, it should be noted that P.W.-7 in the concluding part of the charge-sheet which is a part of the record stated that a prima face case under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act having been well established during investigation, he consulted his superiors and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet in the case. Thus, considering the entire materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that by the statement mentioned earlier P.W.-7 did not mean to say that the charge-sheet submitted by him was baseless. 38. Thus, considering the entire materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that by the statement mentioned earlier P.W.-7 did not mean to say that the charge-sheet submitted by him was baseless. 38. So, from the foregoing discussion it is clear that the allegation that `Ganja' had been recovered from the possession of the Appellants for which the Appellants failed to offer any explanation what so ever has been well proved beyond all reasonable doubts. So, the charge under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act stands well established against all the Appellants. No illegality is found in any of the findings or decisions of the learned Trial Court. 39. Addiction to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is now a social menace and it is leading a generation towards total disaster. So, manufacturing, possessing, transporting and trading etc. of such dangerous articles have to be stopped at any costs. The punishments given to the Appellants do not, therefore, appear to be disproportionate. 40. So, from what has been discussed above, it is clear that no interference into the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is called for in the present appeals. 41. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed on contest. 42. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in G.R. Case No. 148 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Special Court on 26.05.2008 and 27.05.2008 are hereby affirmed. 43. L.C.R. be sent back to the Trial Court. Appeal dismissed.