ORDER : B.S. Chauhan, J. These appeals arise out of the judgment of High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1452-SB/2004 dismissing the appeal of the appellants which was preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat (Special Judge) convicting them under Section 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act') and sentencing them to under rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rupees One lakh each. 2. As per the case of the prosecution on 22.8.1999, Rajinder Singh, [Inspector-SHO of PS: City Panipat] along with ASI Dharamvir Singh, Head Constable Rajender Singh, Constable Brij Pal, constable Om Prakash and Constable Raj Singh was present near the outer gate of Bus stand, Panipat in connection with investigation of a Criminal Case, when constable Shyam Lal & Sewa Singh also joined them and after some time two persons carrying a gunny bag were seen coming from inside the Bus Stand. On seeing the police party ahead, they got confused and started walking with fast steps after taking a reverse turn. Feeling suspicious, the Inspector apprehended them with the help of his companions at a distance of about paces. On query one of them disclosed his name as Pritam Singh son of Hira Singh, resident of Hajri Distt. Ludhiana and the other as Kulwant Singh son of Sh. Ujjagar Singh, resident of Mohalla Rai Majra, village Pail, District Ludhiana. One edge of the gunny bag was held by Kulwant Singh and the other was held by Pritam Singh. 3. Suspecting that there was some intoxicant drug in the gunny bag, the Inspector gave a joint notice to petitioners under Section 50 of the NDPS Act extending an offer to them that they may opt forgiving personal search of the gunny bag before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. 4. In reply (Ex: P-2], the alleged accused persons opted for a search of the gunny bag in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Thereupon, the D.S.P., Police Station City Panipat was asked to come at the spot who directed the Inspector to take search of the gunny bag which the accused were carrying. 5. The prosecution examined certain witnesses in support of the prosecution case, material witness being Rajinder Singh, Inspector-SHO. Pratap Singh, D.S.P. and Dharamvir Singh, I.O. The appellants also examined five witnesses as defence witnesses. 5. The prosecution examined certain witnesses in support of the prosecution case, material witness being Rajinder Singh, Inspector-SHO. Pratap Singh, D.S.P. and Dharamvir Singh, I.O. The appellants also examined five witnesses as defence witnesses. The case of the appellants was that they were not at the spot when the alleged recovery was made. In fact, they had gone to Delhi to fix the date for marriage of Rupinder Kaur, daughter of Pritam Singh, appellant No. 1. When they were on their way back and had got down on the main road at Panipat at about 6.00 PM and were taking tea on the road side, they were apprehended at that time and the aforesaid narcotic substance was planted on them. After critical examination of the prosecution as well as defence witnesses, the trial court believed the prosecution story as testified by the police officials and rejected the defence version giving its reasons in support thereof. This resulted in the conviction as mentioned above. 6. In the appeal filed before the High Court, the primary ground taken by the appellants to assail the judgment of the Sessions Judge was that the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature, were not complied with. This has been the argument before us as well, in the present appeal. We find from the judgment of the High Court that the High Court has held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has no application in the facts of this case inasmuch as it was not the person of the appellants which were searched but recoveries were made from the bag which the appellants were carrying. As per the High Court Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not apply, as is clear from the language there in which is attracted only when the person in question is bodily searched. In rendering this opinion, the High Court has referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 (6) SC 172 and other judgments which have followed the Constitution Bench judgment. From the facts of this case, we are in agreement of the aforesaid position taken by the High Court holding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has no application. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that there was violation of Section 51 of the NDPS Act. From the facts of this case, we are in agreement of the aforesaid position taken by the High Court holding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has no application. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that there was violation of Section 51 of the NDPS Act. He tried to argue that even if Section 50 is not applicable, in those cases, as per Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search and seizure are applicable. However, there are no foundational facts for this submission. 7. Learned counsel was candid in accepting that this was not the ground raised by the defence either in the trial court or in the High Court. Therefore such a plea, for lack of any factual foundation, cannot be entertained. On merits it is found that there was, in fact, search from the bags of these persons which resulted in the seizure of opium weighing 4.400kgs. Following discussion of the High Court, with which we agree, is reproduced in this behalf: "There being no independent witness, the seal had to be handed over to some police official. There is no evidence to the effect that the contents of the sample were tampered with at any stage. As mentioned in Ex P-16, the seals on the sample tallied with the specimen seal as per the forwarding authority letter. The affidavit Ex. P-9 of MHC Naresh Kumar and affidavit Ex.P-10 of Constable Sumer chand were tendered in evidence by the prosecution. Their evidence being of formal character, they were tendered for their cross- examination. As is borne out from the record, the accused did not opt to cross-examine these witnesses. Thus, it is clear and unambigous that they were fully satisfied that the contents of the sample parcel remained in proper custody and were not tampered with at any stage." 8. The witnesses produced by the defence are discarded because of various in firm it is found in their testimonies which are discussed in detail by the trial court as well as the High Court. We reproduce the following discussion from the judgment of the High Court on this aspect: "In a nut shell, the defence plea is that the appellants had gone to Delhi to fix the date for the marriage of Rupinder Kaur, the daughter of Pritam Singh appellant. We reproduce the following discussion from the judgment of the High Court on this aspect: "In a nut shell, the defence plea is that the appellants had gone to Delhi to fix the date for the marriage of Rupinder Kaur, the daughter of Pritam Singh appellant. When they were on their way back from Delhi and had got down on the main road at Panipat at about 6.00 P.M. and were taking tea on the road side, meanwhile, they were apprehended. Thus one thing is clear that they have admitted their presence at the place of the recovery. Under the stress of cross-examination, Jarnail Singh DW-1 has testified that" I did not accompany the accused to Delhi in any connection. I, remember the date because I had actually gone to Panipat to inquire the matter and I found both the accused in police lock-up at that time. We generally meet with each other being neighbour." This witness being neighbour of the appellant, it was not difficult for the letters to procure his services to depose in the Court in their favour. He being a member panchayat would have got transacted a resolution against the conduct of the Investigator and copies thereof would have been endorsed to the higher authorities of the police hierarchy. There being no such evidence his ipse dixit can hardly inspire confidence. It is in the cross-examination of Jarnail Singh DW-2 that "There is no photograph of mine in the album shown to me today as photos were taken of both the relations of the parties. I do not remember the exact date when the accused came to Delhi for fixing the date of marriage but I came after 6-7 months of ring ceremony. Both the accused are related to each other. This evidence too does not advance the cause of the appellants in any manner. As regards Ajit Singh DW-3, he has stated in his cross- examination that "I knew Kulwant Singh as he had met me at the "mangni" ceremony at the house of accused Pritam Singh and he had arranged for the matrimonial alliance. "In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that "I know Pritam Singh accused present in the court. He is a mason and he constructed my kothi in the year 1997-98/". Thus, it was not difficult to this witness to depose in favour of the appellants. "In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that "I know Pritam Singh accused present in the court. He is a mason and he constructed my kothi in the year 1997-98/". Thus, it was not difficult to this witness to depose in favour of the appellants. It is in the evidence of Nirmal Singh DW-4 that "I know both the accused. Kulwant Singh accused is my co- villager. He is a carpenter and owns a saw mill. My house is near the house of said Kulwant Singh. Pritam Singh accused was on visiting terms with Kulawant Singh." It is in his cross-examination that I have not obtained any sales tax number. Kulwant Singh has also no sales tax number of the shop xx xx xx I am M.C." This evidence can be well interpreted to mean that this witness is putting up in the neighbourhood of Kulwant Singh appellant. For this reason, it was not difficult to procure his services to depose in favour of the appellant. As testified by Darshan Singh DW-5 that "My son Bobby was got engaged with the daughter of Pritam Singh accused at the instance of my relation Kulwant Singh accused at village Majra about 3/4 years back. The engagement ceremony was performed at the house of Pritam Singh accused in village Majri and that function was attended by me, my wife and my son Bobby along with Kulawant Singh and other relations. Our snaps were taken at that time. I have seen my photo in Ex. DA at point A and Rupinder Kaur daughter of Pritam Singh and wife of Bobby. Under the stress of cross-examination, he regretted his inability to tell the date, month and year of the ring ceremony. Had this ceremony been verily performed, this witness being father of Bobby with whom the daughter of Pritam Singh appellant was allegedly betrothed, would not have forgotten at least the month or year of ring ceremony. Furthermore, this witness went on to say in his cross-examination that the accused persons left my house at about 5 A.M. morning where as the prosecution version is that they were apprehended at the bus stand of Panipat around 6.00 P.M. Distance between Panipat and Delhi is not that much, as would have consumed more than 12 hours to cover it. In my estimation, the entire defence story has been coined to save the appellants from being punished." 9. In my estimation, the entire defence story has been coined to save the appellants from being punished." 9. We see no reason to give a different finding. We thus do not find any merit in the appeal. As is mentioned hereinbefore, apart from sentencing the appellants for 10 years R.I., a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each is also imposed on the appellants. The trial court has further stated that in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo further sentence of 2½ years R.I. We feel that this part of order needs modification. Payment of fine of Rupees one lakh is maintained. However, at the same time we direct that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further sentence for one year. With this modification, the appeals stand disposed of.