JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the Judgment of conviction & order of sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam- Berhampur in S.T. Nos. 19 of 1991 (S.C. Nos. 18 of 1991 GDC) convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 & sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years & to pay of fine of Rs.2,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.1990, the Sub- Inspector of Excise, E.I.B., Berhampur (P.W.3) & his constable (P.W.2) were on patrolling duty at Goilundi bus stand of Berhampur town. When it was around 10.00 A.M.. it is alleged that the Appellant carrying gunny bag over his head arrived there P.W.3 raised suspicion that it contained ganja Then he called some persons present there. It is stated that P.W.3 disclosed before the Appellant his intention to search his bag as he suspected the bag to be containing ganja. It is also stated that the Appellant was asked to exercise his option of being searched in presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer & when he refused, after observing necessary formalities, P.W.3 searched the gunny bag & finally after weighment found it to have been containing 14 kgs. of ganja. Such possession of ganja being without any authority, the seizure was made by preparing the seizure list. It is also stated that the samples were drawn & the Appellant was forwarded to the Court on that day with the documents which were also placed before the Court. The samples were sent for chemical analysis & the report came in affirmative. So the prosecution was launched against the Appellant. He accordingly faced the trial being charged for above offence. 3. The Appellant in the trial took the plea of complete denial with further explanation that when he was going for work as labourer, he was forcibly taken & falsely implicated in this case. In the trial, from the side of the prosecution, three witnesses have been examined. Besides seizure list Ext.3, chemical report Ext.6, & other documents were admitted in evidence. The gunny bag containing ganja being produced in the trial has been marked as M.O.I. Apart from that other material objects were also produced in the trial. The defence has not examined any witness. 4. Besides seizure list Ext.3, chemical report Ext.6, & other documents were admitted in evidence. The gunny bag containing ganja being produced in the trial has been marked as M.O.I. Apart from that other material objects were also produced in the trial. The defence has not examined any witness. 4. The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses & upon their evaluation has arrived at a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the Appellant who was possession of 14 kgs. of ganja. In view of the same, the Trial Court held the Appellant guilty of the above offence & awarded sentence as aforesaid, which are now impugned in this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the factum of search, recovery & seizure has not been proved beyond doubt in the present case by clear, cogent & acceptable evidence. It is also submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3 are highly discrepant & according to him, the Trial Court erred in law by rendering the finding. He further submits that the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act having not been duly complied with; that makes the entire search, recovery & seizure suspect. His last contention is that the provision of Section 57 of the Act which casts a duty on the part of the officer arresting to intimate to the immediate superior officer within 48 hours of arrest having not been proved to have been complied with, the prosecution is bound to fail. So, he urges that the impugned Judgment of conviction & order of sentence being unsustainable in the eye of law, are liable to be set aside in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the State on the contrary supports the findings of the Trial Court. It is also his submission that thread bare analysis of evidence has been made by the Trial Court so far as the evidence of P.Ws. 2 & 3 are concerned. There being no material discrepancy in such evidence & the documentary evidence being there on record corroborating the said evidence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the above offence. 2 & 3 are concerned. There being no material discrepancy in such evidence & the documentary evidence being there on record corroborating the said evidence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the above offence. It is next submitted that in the facts & circumstances of the case, the provision of Section 50 of the Act is not required to be complied with as the present case is not one of search of a person. He next contends that the evidence on record are quite sufficient & acceptable to hold that there has been compliance of provision of Section 57 of the Act. In view of all these, he contends that the appeal bears no merit. . 6. With the above rival submission, this Court is now called upon to judge the sustainability of the finding with regard to the possession of ganja by this Appellant on the relevant date, time & place. P.W.3, the Sub-Inspector of Excise has deposed that on 02.05.1990 the Appellant was detained at the western end of the bus stand of platform & on being asked the Appellant fumbled which further confirmed his suspicion & that led to express his desire to search the bag of the Appellant that he was carrying. He next called some witness when P.W.1 only came forward. It is also his evidence that the Appellant was asked as to whether he would like to be searched in presence of Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, & on his denial for either of the two, search was conducted. He in view of his special training & experience of service, could ascertain the contents by physically testing with a little portion of it that it was ganja. He has deposed that weighment being carried-out as per his direction, it weighed 14 kgs. He has further stated to have prepared the seizure list, collected the sample in two packets, kept those in paper packets, tied & sealed by using his own personal brass seal. During trial, he has produced the bags containing residue ganja & the same has been marked as M.O.I, Ext-3 has been proved to have been prepared at the spot. It is further stated that he immediately produced the Appellant in the Court with all documents & deposited the seized bag containing the residue ganja in Court malkhana in proper condition. During trial, he has produced the bags containing residue ganja & the same has been marked as M.O.I, Ext-3 has been proved to have been prepared at the spot. It is further stated that he immediately produced the Appellant in the Court with all documents & deposited the seized bag containing the residue ganja in Court malkhana in proper condition. As per his evidence, sample packet was also sent to the chemical analyst, who has reported it to be ganja. As regards compliance of Section 57 of the Act, his evidence is to the effect that he intimated such factum of recovery of seizure of ganja from the possession of the Appellant to his Inspector who is his immediate superior authority in writing. This P.W.3 has been cross-examined at length. He has stated that on that day, he detected five cases. Carefully going through his deposition, I do not find anything substantial to have been brought out from the leaps of this witness, so as to either to discard or throw any doubt on veracity of the prosecution case as regards search, recovery & seizure of ganja from the possession of the Appellant. P.W.2 the Excise Constable appears to have deposed in same vain. He has stated with regard to the factum of detention of the Appellant after raising suspicion by P.W.3 & then going for search followed by recovery of ganja. He has stated to have weighed the contents of the said gunny bag & also collected the sample. He has denied the suggestion with regard to the fact that no ganja has been seized from the possession of the Appellant. The independent witness examined in this case is P.W.1. He has also gone to state the details with regard to search, recovery & seizure while corroborating the version of P.Ws. 2 & 3. No material has been placed before the Court to show that the sample tested by the chemical examiner was not the one that was collected from the contents of the gunny bag which was being carried by the Appellant. The defence has also not offered any explanation as to why these witnesses including one independent would falsely implicate the Appellant when they have absolutely no axe to grind against him & also totally without having prior acquaintance. The defence has also not offered any explanation as to why these witnesses including one independent would falsely implicate the Appellant when they have absolutely no axe to grind against him & also totally without having prior acquaintance. In view of all these, on thorough analysis of evidence on record, this Court finds no other option but to confirm the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the factum of seizure of 14 kgs. of ganja from the gunny bag held by the Appellant. 7. Next stands for consideration as regards non-compliance of provision of Section 50 of the Act. The position of law is no more res integra that the said provision is mandatory & is required to be complied with when it's a case of search of 'person' & that is a valuable safeguard. The law has been settled by plethora of decisions of the Apex Court & this Court that search of bag being carried by a person either carried on hand or head, does not amount to search of 'person' & for the said reason, the compliance of provision of Section 50 of the Act is not the mandatory requirement. Therefore, said provision does not come into play in the present case. In view of the above, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on that score is hereby repelled & there remains no further need to go for elaborate discussion of the evidence on that score to examine proof or otherwise as regards compliance of said provision of Section 50 of the Act & its affect in case of non-compliance. 8. Now taking up the contention regarding non-compliance of Section 57 of the said Act, it is seen to have been stated by P.W.3 & the same appears to be clear, cogent & acceptable. It is true that the prosecution report does not find mention of such fact of compliance of the provision of Section 57 of the Act. However Ext.8 which has been proved by P.W.3, goes to show that information was duly passed over to the superior authority, i.e., the Inspector of Excise. P.W.3 has also in clear terms stated about the said fact & there is no such suspicions features which surface to infer for a moment that Ext.8 is a document created at a later stage for showing the compliance. P.W.3 has also in clear terms stated about the said fact & there is no such suspicions features which surface to infer for a moment that Ext.8 is a document created at a later stage for showing the compliance. Simply because said fact does not find mention in the prosecution report, the evidence otherwise establishing the factum of compliance of said provision in my considered do not either get demolished nor can be doubted in any manner. So the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on this score cannot be countenanced. . 9. For the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any justifiable reason to upset the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecution has established its case against that the Appellant on the relevant date, time & place was in possession of 14 kgs. of ganja in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court appears to be just & proper more particularly taking into consideration, the deleterious affect of commission of such kind of offence upon the society at large. 10. Resultantly, the Judgment of conviction & the order of sentence are hereby confirmed & consequently this appeal fails.