Judgment Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. All the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.9.2010 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Koria, Baikunthpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 2/2009, whereby and whereunder the appellants of the three appeals have been held guilty of commission of offence alleged against them and sentenced as described below:- Prosecution Story : It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.3.2009, SHO of Police Station-Manendragarh, Prem Sahu (P.W.9), received mukhbir information at 9:20 in the morning that one Tata Sumo Victa vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 16 B-0778 is carrying ganja in 4 bags brought by the appellants. On receipt of mukhbir intimation, a panchnama of mukhbir information was prepared in Ex. P-19 and sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police). A separate panchnama was also recorded to the effect that the Station House Officer is proceeding to seize ganja upon receipt of information without obtaining search warrant as in case of delay, the ganja is likely to be diverted. Thereafter, the SHO proceeded with Sub-Inspector- R.D. Mishra, Constable No. 3, Constable No. 180, Constable No. 350 and constable No. 6 along with witnesses-Dainiras and Dhanraj Tiwari towards the spot as informed by the mukhbir. 2. Further case of the prosecution is that the police team arrived at the informed place i.e. Khediya Triangle and suspect vehicle was stopped and searched, in which 4 bags containing total 50.024 k.g. of ganja were found in possession of the appellants travelling in the vehicle which was being driven by appellant- Sunil. One of the constables in the team was asked to bring weighing machine for weighment Ganja kept in the bags was weighed. Two samples, each of 50 grams were drawn from each of those bags and sealed. Two mobiles sets were also seized. The proceedings were recorded in different panchnama namely Vahan panchnama [Ex. P1(A)], search panchnama (Ex. P-2), search panchnama of police team (Ex. P-3), recovery (of ganja) panchnama in Ex. P-4, identification (of ganja) panchnama in Ex. P-5 and weighment panchnama in Ex. P-6. Vehicle, ganja and mobile phones were seized from appellant Sunil vide seizure memo Ex. P-7. The appellants were brought to the police station and FIR in Ex. P-22 was recorded by the Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) at 14:00 hrs. P-4, identification (of ganja) panchnama in Ex. P-5 and weighment panchnama in Ex. P-6. Vehicle, ganja and mobile phones were seized from appellant Sunil vide seizure memo Ex. P-7. The appellants were brought to the police station and FIR in Ex. P-22 was recorded by the Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) at 14:00 hrs. against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act."). Further case of the prosecution is that seized quantity of ganja was deposited in the malkhana of the police station vide Ex. P-23 by Prem Sahu (P.W.9) and thereafter samples which were drawn at the time of seizure were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with covering memo dated 31.3.2009 of Superintendent of Police, Korea vide Ex. P-30 through Constable-Pushpraj Singh (P.W.8) in respect of which an acknowledgment of receipt vide Ex. P-18 was issued by the FSL. FSL report dated 17.8.2009 (Ex. P-31) was received confirming samples as ganja. 3. Upon submission of charge sheet, learned Special Judge charged each of the appellants for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. As the appellants abjured guilt, they were put to trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them in the evidence led by the prosecution. All the appellants denied having committed the offence and defence of the appellant-Sunil Kumar was that the vehicle was taken by the police of Police Station-Kotma to the house of Ramsundar and on the next date, he was called by the police to take the vehicle. He was not arrested by the police of Manendragarh and false case has been prepared. Other appellants dimply denied having committed offence and said that they have been falsely implicated. No defence witness was examined. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court held all the appellants guilty of commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act i.e. illegal possession of ganja of commercial quantity and sentenced them as described above. 4. No defence witness was examined. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court held all the appellants guilty of commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act i.e. illegal possession of ganja of commercial quantity and sentenced them as described above. 4. Assailing correctness and validity of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned Senior counsel argued and submitted that the very seizure of huge quantity of contraband from possession of the appellant is highly doubtful. The independent witnesses of seizure Dainiras (P.W.3) and Dhanraj Tiwari (P.W.4) both have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) does not inspire confidence as it suffers from contradictions and omissions. The time of seizure as stated by the prosecution is also different. While Investigating Officer claims to have seized contraband in the morning hours and completed the proceedings by 1:30 p.m., police witness, Constable-Neelam (P.W.5), who is said to have accompanied the police team has deposed that ganja was seized in the night. There is no clinching, reliable and dependable evidence with regard to compliance of provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the statements of the prosecution witnesses in this regard are contradictory. Next contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants is that the police witnesses have not reliably stated with regard to drawal and sealing of samples from 4 bags alleged to have been seized from the vehicle of appellant-Sunil. In the absence of there being any reliable and trustworthy evidence of drawal of samples, its sealing as also weighment of the quantity of ganja, the entire proceedings become highly doubtful. It is also contended that the evidence of police witness Ramnayan Gupta (P.W.6) who claims to have recorded rojnamcha sanha and received seized quantity of ganja and samples and depositing in malkhana is also not reliable as the malkhana register was not produced nor any certified copy of it admitted in the evidence nor originals of rojnamcha sanha containing signature of this witness was produced. Unsigned carbon copy of rojnamcha sanha is not admissible in evidence. This material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution rendered the entire prosecution story of seizure of ganja from the vehicle, drawal and sealing of samples, weighment, deposit in malkhana doubtful. Unsigned carbon copy of rojnamcha sanha is not admissible in evidence. This material discrepancy in the case of the prosecution rendered the entire prosecution story of seizure of ganja from the vehicle, drawal and sealing of samples, weighment, deposit in malkhana doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that allegation of being possessed of commercial quantity of ganja is serious in nature and has grave consequences as minimum sentence of 10 years and minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh is provided under the law. Therefore, the prosecution is put to strict proof of seizure of ganja from the possession of appellants. It is also submitted that ganja is shown to have been seized from the possession of the appellant Sunil alone. The other three appellants were gratuitous passengers and, therefore, merely because they were travelling along 'with appellant Sunil in that vehicle, they cannot be held liable for commission of offence. 5. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the State is that the Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) and other prosecution witnesses have proved receipt and recording of mukhbir information in the police station and entries made in rojnamcha sanha has been proved by its author Ramnayan Gupta (P.W.6). He further submits that there is substantial compliance of provision contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act as the Investigating Officer. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) had duly recorded panchnama stating reasons why he is proceeding to seize ganja without obtaining search warrant. He has also proved that an information in this regard was sent to SDO (P) vide Ex. P-1. Receipt of this information in the office of SDO(P) on the same date has been proved by constable Swarn Singh (PW.2) posted in the office of SDO (P) and has proved his signature acknowledging receipt in Ex. P-1. Otherwise also, it is submitted that the provision of Section 42 are not mandatory and once substantial compliance is shown and no prejudice is established by the accused, the conviction does not warrant interference. It is next submitted that even though seizure witnesses Dainiras (P.W.3) and Dhanraj Tiwari (P.W.4) have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have admitted their signature in seizure memo Ex. P-7. They do not say that they were threatened or in any. manner pressurized by the police officer to sign on the document of seizure. It is next submitted that even though seizure witnesses Dainiras (P.W.3) and Dhanraj Tiwari (P.W.4) have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have admitted their signature in seizure memo Ex. P-7. They do not say that they were threatened or in any. manner pressurized by the police officer to sign on the document of seizure. In any case, the Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (PW.9) has proved seizure of ganja in 4 bags kept in the vehicle of the appellants which is corroborated from the evidence of other police witnesses and as he has complied with other provision regarding search, seizure, weighment, sealing and deposit of ganja as recorded under various provision of NDPS Act, seizure is proved beyond doubt particularly when nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination as to why he would falsely implicate the appellants. There is reliable evidence of procurement of weighing machine and weighment of ganja and its weight was duly recorded in taul panchnama proved by the I.O. The evidence of I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) that after seizure at the spot, he drew samples and properly sealed it, is reliable. He has also stated that ganja seized from possession of the appellant was deposited in the malkhana. which is corroborated from the statement of Ramnayan Gupta (P.W.6) who has stated that he deposited ganja in the malkhana of police station. This Witness duly produced register of malkhana and stated regarding entry to this effect therein which has not been controverted in his cross-examination. Therefore, the prosecution has proved by leading convincing evidence that seized ganja was deposited in the safe custody of police malkahana. The ganja was seized from the vehicle which was stopped by the I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) along with team of police officials on the road and upon search carried out in the vehicle, huge quantity of ganja was found. The vehicle was being driven by appellant-Sunil and other three accused were sitting in the vehicle. There is no plausible defence put forth by the appellants. Looking to the quantity of ganja seized from possession of the appellants; minimum sentence of 10 years, as provided under Section 22(b)(ii)(C) of the Act has been imposed on the appellants. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no plausible defence put forth by the appellants. Looking to the quantity of ganja seized from possession of the appellants; minimum sentence of 10 years, as provided under Section 22(b)(ii)(C) of the Act has been imposed on the appellants. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Present is a case where the prosecution has come out with the case that upon receipt of mukhbir information by Prem Sahu (P.W.9) SHO of Police Station Manendragarh, mukhbir information was recorded and intimation of the circumstances in which the Investigating Officer was proceeding to spot without obtaining search warrant was sent to SDO(P). Thereafter, the Investigating Officer proceeded towards the spot along with seizure witnesses and at the spot, suspect vehicle was stopped and it is said that in the vehicle, more than 50 kg. of ganja kept in the 4 bags was found and seized from appellant -Sunil who was driving the vehicle. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed mainly on the ground that the prosecution has tailed to prove seizure beyond doubt as independent witness of seizure namely Dainiras (P.W.3) and Dhanraj Tiwari (P.W.4) have not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. Dainiras (P.W.3) has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the Court, he did not identify the appellants and has stated that no article was seized from the appellants in his presence. He has stated that police has not taken the statement. He, however, admits his signatures in various documents including seizure memo (Ex. P-7). He has been declared hostile and upon cross-examination, he denies having given statement regarding seizure of ganja from the vehicle. He has also not supported other proceedings drawn by the Investigating Officer and has stated that during police checking, his vehicle (auto-rickshaw) was stopped and his signature on panchnama were taken by police officer. He states that when he signed documents, I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) was not present. 9. The other independent witnesses of seizure Dhanraj (P.W.4) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has not identified the appellants and has stated that no seizure was made in his presence, but admits his signature in all the documents which include seizure memo also. He has also been declared hostile. 9. The other independent witnesses of seizure Dhanraj (P.W.4) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has not identified the appellants and has stated that no seizure was made in his presence, but admits his signature in all the documents which include seizure memo also. He has also been declared hostile. In his further examination, he has stated that while he was going to petrol pump, checking was going on. His vehicle was stopped and signatures were obtained on blank papers. He has admitted that he was involved in a murder case with his brothers but later on acquitted. He did not report against the police being afraid of false implication in other case. He has further stated that during checking, his vehicle was seized and his signature were taken in connection with seizure. He has denied having accompanied the police team to the spot where the vehicle is said to be seized. 10. It, however, cannot be accepted as proposition of law that where witnesses of seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution, evidence of seizure by the Investigating Officer has to be invariably disbelieved. The legal position in this regard was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Bholaram Kushwaha v. State of M.P., AIR 2001 SC 229 , wherein dealing with the submission that as the independent witnesses have turned hostile, accused is entitled to be acquitted, it was held as under : "4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as both the witnesses who were stated to be independent witnesses have turned hostile, the trial court should have acquitted the accused. We are not impressed with such a general submission. In order to satisfy ourselves we have perused the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and ascertained as to whether their testimonies inspire confidence for holding the appellant guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted and sentenced." 11. In yet another case of P.P. Beeran v. State of Kerala, (2001) 9 SCC 371, similar contentions were dealt with by the Supreme Court and it was held : "3. The case alleged against him shows that he was found in possession of 23.5 grams of opium at the time when he was intercepted, and searched by PW 2 Sub-Inspector of Police. The case alleged against him shows that he was found in possession of 23.5 grams of opium at the time when he was intercepted, and searched by PW 2 Sub-Inspector of Police. We have noticed that two witnesses were called by PW 2 at the time of search out of whom one was examined as PW 1 and the other was not examined. But even the one examined (PW 1) did not support the prosecution and hence he was treated as hostile. Though an argument was addressed by Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW 2 Sub-Inspector of Police remained uncorroborated and, therefore, that should not be made the sole basis for conviction, it is too late in the day for us to reject the testimony of PW 2 on that ground alone. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the evidence of PW 2 remains uncorroborated because the fact that opium was recovered from his person and also Exhibit P-2 which is an endorsement containing the signature of the appellant could be treated as circumstances corroborating the testimony of PW 2." 12. In the case of P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala, (2003) 8 SCC 726 , the Supreme Court examined the entire case of the prosecution and having come to the conclusion that that seizure was genuinely made by the seizing authority, held as under: "7. The learned counsel then contended that in view of the fact that the panch witness to the seizure has not supported the prosecution case, the seizure cannot be accepted. We have repeatedly held that the mere fact that a panch witness does not support the prosecution case by itself would not make the prosecution case any less acceptable, if otherwise the court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that such seizure was genuinely made. In the instant case also we are satisfied that from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the seizure has been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, this argument also fails." 13. In yet another case of Kartik v. State of C.G., (2007)2 CGLJ 17 , such a situation where independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, which otherwise was proved to be trustworthy and reliable evidence by the departmental witnesses, it was held as under : "9. Therefore, this argument also fails." 13. In yet another case of Kartik v. State of C.G., (2007)2 CGLJ 17 , such a situation where independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, which otherwise was proved to be trustworthy and reliable evidence by the departmental witnesses, it was held as under : "9. It is true that independent witness Chamra Ram has not been examined by the prosecution. However, Baliram P.W.4 supported the prosecution case in toto on being cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. In his examination in chief, he had supported the entire proceedings by Sub Inspector Arived Dwivedi, P.W.5 but had only stated that he could not identify the person from whose possession ganja had been seized. Tejram Sahu P.W.3 witness of weighment panchnama also admitted the signatures on weighment panchnama Ex. P-7. The testimony of Sub Inspector Arvind Dwivedi P.W.5 is wholly unrebutted, trustworthy and inspires confidence. On the basis of the repot of Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur Ex. P-26, it is fully established that the substance seized from the possession of the appellant was ganja". 14. A common thread running through all these judgments is that it cannot be accepted as a general proposition that in all cases where independent witnesses have turned hostile, accused is entitled to be acquitted giving benefit of doubt. On the other hand, it has been held that if from the entire case of the prosecution and taking into consideration the evidence led by the prosecution, Court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that seizure was genuinely made, conviction can be sustained on the basis of seizure made by the seizing authority. It cannot be accepted as a general proposition of law divorced from the facts and circumstances of a given case, that the evidence of the departmental witnesses/seizing authority cannot be made basis for conviction in the absence of corroboration by independent seizure witnesses. If the testimony of the investigating officer is trustworthy and inspires confidence, the same can be trusted and conviction can be sustained. If the testimony of the investigating officer is trustworthy and inspires confidence, the same can be trusted and conviction can be sustained. Even in the case of Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 744, the principles propounded in the, case of Bhola Ram Kushwaha, AIR 2001 SC 229 (supra) was reiterated, that only because witnesses have turned hostile, accused would not be entitled to a judgment of acquittal as matter of right. If otherwise, the case of the prosecution suffers from several discrepancies, non-compliance of mandatory provisions and the testimony of investigating officer and departmental witnesses does not inspire confidence and other attending circumstances of the case cast shadow of doubt, seizure may not be held proved on account of independent witnesses having turned hostile, this would be clear from the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Chakarvarti, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 744 (supra): "38. In Bhola Ram Kushwaha v. State of M.P. this Court although opined that only because witnesses have turned hostile, the appellant would be not entitled to a judgment of acquittal as a matter of right, but having regard to the statements of prosecution witnesses inter alia to the effect that the, police had called the witnesses in a police station and obtained their signatures on the paper and the statements of the independent witnesses that the accused was never interrogated and searched in their presence, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside." 15. Right from the stage of receipt of mukhbir information that the contraband (ganja) is being transported and likely to reach Manendragarh, entire proceedings have been drawn by the then In-charge of the "Police Station-Manendragah, namely Prem Sahu (P.W.9). This witness has deposed regarding receipt of mukhbir information, sending of information to his superior authority, SDO (P), directing his subordinate constable to bring witness and thereafter proceeding towards spot where contraband was likely to reach as per mukhbir information, seizure, weighment, drawal of samples and sealing of seized ganja and depositing the same in the police station. He has also deposed regarding samples sent to FSL for chemical analysis and receipt of report confirming presence of ganja in the samples. This witness has been very elaborately cross-examined with respect to each steps taken by him towards weight, seizure and registration of offence against the appellants. 16. He has also deposed regarding samples sent to FSL for chemical analysis and receipt of report confirming presence of ganja in the samples. This witness has been very elaborately cross-examined with respect to each steps taken by him towards weight, seizure and registration of offence against the appellants. 16. There are five other official witnesses (police constables) posted in the concerned police station and having accompanied the Investigating Officer Prem Sahu to the spot. The evidence of these witnesses coupled with evidence of Investigating Officer needs to be examined in order to find out whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. The Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has stated that he received information on 30.3.2009 that vehicle Tata Sumo Victa bearing registration No. C.G. 16-B-0778 driven by Sunil is carrying ganja to Manendragarh for illegal sale. He has stated the names of other accused-Keshav Prasad, Uttam Panika and Inamul. He has stated that he prepared panchnama of mukhbir information in Ex. P-19 and has proved his signature. He has also stated that a copy of this panchnama (Ex. P-19) was also sent to the office of SDO (P), Manendragarh. In para-8 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that that he received information at 9:20 in the morning and immediately thereafter, he had prepared a panchnama. He has stated that in the information, the number of vehicle was also provided. A perusal of Ex. P-19 proved by the Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) records information in which the number of the vehicle, name of the driver and other three accused has been mentioned. It also states that ganja is being brought from a place Kotpad, Orissa to Manendragarh and is likely to reach within an hour. One out-of the two witnesses of this panchnama, Mohd. Talib Sekh (P.W.7) constable of the said police station has stated that an information was received by I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) that ganja is being transported from Orissa and thereafter mukhbir panchnama (Ex. P-19) was prepared by Prem Sahu and he has proved his signature. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was on duty in the police station from 9:00 in the morning up to 2:00 pm in the afternoon on 30.3.2009 and mukhbir panchnama (Ex. P-19) was prepared at 10:30 in the morning. In para-8 of his cross-examination, this witness, however, states that when panchnama (Ex. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was on duty in the police station from 9:00 in the morning up to 2:00 pm in the afternoon on 30.3.2009 and mukhbir panchnama (Ex. P-19) was prepared at 10:30 in the morning. In para-8 of his cross-examination, this witness, however, states that when panchnama (Ex. P-19) was prepared, the name of the accused and number of vehicle was not noted when he signed panchnama. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants emphasized by highlighting that this discrepancy renders preparation of mukhbir panchnama (Ex. P-19) highly doubtful. 19. In my considered opinion, once this witness Mohd. Talib Sekh (P.W.7) states both in his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination, that information with regard to the transportation of ganja coming from Orissa was received by T.I. and then T.I prepared panchnama in Ex. P-19 and he admits having signed panchnama (Ex. P-19), the aforesaid discrepancy does not altogether make the entire case of the prosecution doubtful, at least, to the extent that an information was received and mukhbir panchnama was prepared by T.I. Prem Sahu is proved. The witness was examined after more than 9 months. He having admitted his signature in Ex. P-19, the prosecution case with regard to receipt of information that ganja is being transported and brought from Orissa to Manendragarh cannot be doubted. 20. Investigation Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has stated that a panchnama in Ex. P-1 was prepared recording reason why search warrant could not be taken and I.O. proceeded to seize ganja without obtaining search warrant. As the evidence of this witness goes to show, the information received was that vehicle carrying ganja is likely to reach Manendragarh within an hour. That was sufficient reason with Prem Sahu (P.W.9) to proceed to the spot without taking search warrant and it has been rightly recorded that if he proceeds for taking search warrant, the contraband may be diverted to other place. Preparation of this panchnama (Ex. P-1) containing such reason has been proved by the I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9). Ramnayan Gupta (P.W.6) has also supported the statements of the I.O. that the information was received on 30.3.2009 regarding transportation of ganja to Manendragarh. Thereafter, the information was recorded in rojnamcha sanha of the police station. A carbon copy of rojnamcha sanha No. 1868 of mukhbir information was produced before the Court. Ramnayan Gupta (P.W.6) has also supported the statements of the I.O. that the information was received on 30.3.2009 regarding transportation of ganja to Manendragarh. Thereafter, the information was recorded in rojnamcha sanha of the police station. A carbon copy of rojnamcha sanha No. 1868 of mukhbir information was produced before the Court. This witness has also corroborated the evidence of Investigating Officer regarding reason for not taking search warrant. He has further stated that this was recorded in rojnamcha sanha No. 1872 in the police station and forwarded to the office of SDO (P). Pushpraj Singh (P.W.8) has also stated that T.I. Prem Sahu informed him that an information of trafficking of ganja has been received and he has to go along with him for seizing ganja. 21. Swarn Kumar Gupta (P.W.2), Constable posted in the office of SDO (P) has stated that the information containing reasons for not taking search warrant was received from the police station Manendragrh, which he had received and made entry at Sr. No. 420/09 in the inward register and had given acknowledgment. He has proved his signature in information receipt (Ex. P-1). 22. Thus, the evidence of I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) with regard to the receipt of information in the police station, number of vehicle and the name of the accused recorded in the mukhbir information panchnama, in Ex. P-19 and sending information to the office of SDO (P) vide Ex. P-1 stating reasons why he is proceeding without obtaining search warrant is corroborated from evidence of other witnesses and inspires confidence. 23. There is, however, a dispute with regard to the time when the information of Ex. P-1 was received in the office of SDO (P). Though I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has deposed in his evidence that he had recorded the information (Ex. P-1) and the information was taken to the office of SDO (P) by constable-Neelam Kumar Kashyap and according to this witness, the information was taken in the morning itself, Neelam Kumar Kashyap (P.W.5) does not say in his evidence regarding taking this information in the morning-hours. In his cross-examination, Swarn Singh (P.W.2) constable in the office of SDO (P) has admitted that he has not written time of receipt of information. Ex. P-1 contains receipt under the signature of Swarn Singh (P.W.2). In his cross-examination, Swarn Singh (P.W.2) constable in the office of SDO (P) has admitted that he has not written time of receipt of information. Ex. P-1 contains receipt under the signature of Swarn Singh (P.W.2). He has proved his signature under dated 30.3.2009 and his name has also been recorded therein and it bears seal of the office of SDO (P). The proof of inward registration has also been noted in the same document. Therefore, what is proved is that the information was sent to the office of SDO (P) and received on the same date though not immediately after recording of this information. 24. In view of above analysis, though it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that such information was prepared by Prem Sahu (P.W.9) and sent to the office of SDO (P) and received therein by Swarn Kumar Gupta (P.W.2) on the same date, the time of receipt in the office of SDO (P) is not proved by the prosecution. However, the aforesaid evidence constitutes substantial compliance of the provision contained under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, which is reproduced as under: "42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization - (1) x x x (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereto to his immediate official superior." 25. In view of above, the prosecution story as proved from the evidence of Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) and corroborated from the evidence of other witnesses and documentary evidence, sending of information to the office of SDO (P) stating reason for proceeding to the spot to seize ganja without obtaining search warrant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 26. The Investigating Officer- Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has deposed that the vehicle was intercepted near Khedia Triangle and in the driving seat, Sunil was sitting, by his side Uttam and in the back seats Keshav and Inamul were sitting. He has deposed that four blue plastic bags were kept. A panchnama of the vehicle was also prepared in Ex. P-1 A, in which he has proved his signature. He has further stated that thereafter, he had given a notice of search to Sunil in Ex. P-2. His right to be searched by a gazetted officer was also informed to him in Ex. A panchnama of the vehicle was also prepared in Ex. P-1 A, in which he has proved his signature. He has further stated that thereafter, he had given a notice of search to Sunil in Ex. P-2. His right to be searched by a gazetted officer was also informed to him in Ex. P-20 and consent given by the appellants in Ex. P-20 signed by Sunil has also been proved by him. He has further stated that he gave his search including police staff to Sunil and panchnama to this effect (Ex. P-3) was prepared which contained his signature and that of Sunil. Search of witnesses by driver Sunil prepared in Ex. P-21 has also been proved by him. He categorically deposed that thereafter he had searched the vehicle and recovered ganja, kept in 4 blue bags and recovery panchnama (Ex.P-4) was prepared by him. He has proved his signature and also stated that appellant-Sunil signed the documents. Thereafter a spot identification of the article appearing to be ganja was also prepared in identification panchnama in Ex. P-5 proved by him containing his signatures. This witness further states that weighing machine was also requisitioned and bags were marked as Article A-1, Article A-2, Article A-3 & Article A-4 and all the bags were weighed. The weight of each of the bags was also recorded. From each of the bags two samples, each of 50-50 grams were taken out and sealed and specimen seal was also affixed in weighment panchnama (Ex. P-6) which also he has proved. He has further stated that seizure of ganja in 4 bags along with samples and two mobile phones were seized by him in Ex. P-7. On this aspect in respect of aforesaid proceedings, this witness has been subjected to detailed cross-examination. He has stated that though each of the appellants stated that one bag each belongs to them, he seized all the bags from Sunil only. In his cross-examination, number of minute details have been elicited but except minor discrepancies, the proceedings drawn by this witness regarding search of the vehicle, recovery of ganja, marking of different bags as Articles, seizure of contraband and drawal of samples and seizure of mobiles are reliable and trustworthy as on material aspects, aforesaid evidence of this witness has been corroborated from other prosecution witness which shall be dealt with herein below. 27. Mohd. 27. Mohd. Talib Sekh (P.W.7), Constable has stated that in Khdia Triangle, the vehicle Sumo Victa C.G. 16-D-0778 arrived which was stopped and Sunil was found driving the vehicle. Uttam, Keshav and Enamul were sitting with him in the vehicle and 4 bags of ganja were kept in the vehicle. He has stated that the recovered articles were weighed at the spot and the total quantity was found little more than 50 k.g. He has also said that two mobiles sets were also seized. He stated that during proceeding of raid, he was there along with T.I. Prem Sahu. In his cross-examination, this witness has reiterated that vehicle was stopped and Sunil was sitting on the driving seat. Ganja was found behind the seats. Gangja recovered at the spot was weighed on an electronic weighing machine. He, says that the weighing machine was brought by Pushpraj (P.W.8). Purshpraj (P.W.8) has, stated that upon instructions of T.I.O Prem Sahu, he had brought electronic weighing machine from the shop of one Abdul and at the spot, the ganja was weighed which was found approximately 50 k.g. 28. The evidence of Mohd. Talib Sekh (P.W.7) & Pushpraj Singh (P.W.8) fully corroborates the testimony of I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) with regard to search of vehicle, recovery of ganja, its weighment on electronic weighing machine and the weight found around 50 k.g. Thus the evidence of T.I. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) with regard to seizure of ganja as also weighment of ganja is corroborated from the ocular testimony of Mohd. Talib Sekh (P.W.7) and Pushpraj Singh (P.W.8). 29. The evidence of Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) also proves that this witness has complied with various procedural safeguards to lay credence to the prosecution case of seizure of ganja from possession of appellants. Ocular testimony proves various panchnama prepared in Ex. P-1 (panchnama assigning the reasons for not taking search warrant, Ex. P-2 (search panchnama of accused), Ex. P-3 (search panchnama of police officials), Ex. P-4 (recovery panchnama), Ex. P-5 (identification panchnama), Ex. P-6 (weighment panchnama), Ex. P-7 (seizure of vehicle, ganja and mobile panchnama), Ex. P-19 (mukhbir information panchnama), Ex. P-20 (right to be search panchnama) and Ex. P-21 (search panchnama of witnesses). 30. P-2 (search panchnama of accused), Ex. P-3 (search panchnama of police officials), Ex. P-4 (recovery panchnama), Ex. P-5 (identification panchnama), Ex. P-6 (weighment panchnama), Ex. P-7 (seizure of vehicle, ganja and mobile panchnama), Ex. P-19 (mukhbir information panchnama), Ex. P-20 (right to be search panchnama) and Ex. P-21 (search panchnama of witnesses). 30. Prem Sahu (P.W.9), I.O. has further deposed in para-4 of his evidence that from the bag, samples of 50 grains each in two pockets were prepared and sealed and the specimen of seal was also affixed on wheighment panchnama (Ex. P-6). A perusal of Ex. P-6 shows affixation of specimen seal also. This witness further stated that the 4 bags were marked as Article A-1, Article A-2, Article A-3 and Article A-4 and has clearly stated regarding the quantity of ganja which was found in each of the bags which has also been duly recorded in weighment panchnama (Ex. P-6). He further deposes regarding recording of FIR in Ex. P-22 and proved his signature. Further evidence of this witness is that registration of the case was forwarded to Judicial Magistrate Class-II, Manendragarh and thereafter a memo (Ex. P-23) of deposit of ganja in the malkahana was given to Head Constable/Station Moharrir No. 285 in which he has proved his signature. 31. Serious doubt has been raised with regard to prosecution case by submitting that neither independent witnesses of the seizure nor other witness of the prosecution have corroborated the testimony of I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) with regard to sealing of samples drawn from 4 bags in which ganja is alleged to have recovered. This argument is liable to be rejected because I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has clearly and reliably stated regarding sealing of samples and memo (Ex. P-23) and weighment panchnama (Ex. P-6) records the fact of sealing of all the bags. Ex. P-7, seizure memo, also records the fact that the samples as well as bags of ganja seized were separately sealed. 32. The evidence with regard to safe custody of ganja is proved from the evidence of I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9.) and Ramnayan Gupta (P.W-6) who was posted as Moharrir of police station - Manendragarh. 33. Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has stated that the quantity seized by him was taken to police station where FIR was registered in Ex. P-22 and seized ganja was handed over to police station Moharrir No. 285 vide Ex. 33. Investigating Officer Prem Sahu (P.W.9) has stated that the quantity seized by him was taken to police station where FIR was registered in Ex. P-22 and seized ganja was handed over to police station Moharrir No. 285 vide Ex. P-23 in which he has proved his signature. This fact he has reiterated in para-23 of the cross-examination also that complete quantity of ganja in 8 bags with samples in 8 packets was deposited in malkhana. Ramnayan (F.W.6) also stated in his evidence that the quantity of ganja was brought to the police station and kept in the safe custody by him. He stated in the Court having brought the relevant register and stated that at Sr. No. 69 seizure rojnamcha sanha No. 1883 under Crime No. 124/09 against Sunil and three others regarding seizure of Tata Sumo vehicle, 4 bags of ganja in total weighing 50,24 k.g. with sample and mobile were kept in the malkhana. 34. Sending of the samples to FSL has been proved by I.O. Prem Sahu (P.W.9) and Moharrir- Ramnayan Gupta (P.W.6). Pushpraj Singh (P.W.8) has stated having taken samples to the FSL, Raipur and receipt in Ex. P-18. FSL report in Ex. P-31 proves presence of ganja. It also clearly records that 4 packets brought by Pushpraj, Constable No. 180 on 1.4.2009 contained specimen seal of the police station. The prosecution has also placed on record memo dated 17.8.2009 of the FSL. Ganja seized by the prosecution was also produced before the Court during trial which is clear from order sheet dated 7.7.2010. It has been recorded, that-4 bags, Article A-1, Article A-2, Article A-3 and Article A-4 along with an envelope containing two mobiles found in the sealed conditions were produced before the Court. In re-examination of the I.O. Prem Sahu he has stated that the 4 bags in Article A-1 to Article A-4 marked by him was weighed and separately recorded therein. It also proves that the bags were found sealed. 35. In view of above analysis of evidence on record, prosecution case with regard to receipt of information, search of vehicle, recovery of ganja and seizure of the same from appellant Sunil, weighment, drawal of samples, safe custody of seized ganja and sample sent immediately to FSL without loss of time for making analysis is proved beyond reasonable doubt despite certain minor discrepancy. Cumulative view of the evidence of the prosecution lays credence to the prosecution story. In the vehicle, huge quantity of ganja was found, Sunil was found driving and other three accused were traveling along with him (sic) explanation has been given by other three accused to create doubt with regard to their involvement in the offence. It was not a public vehicle but a private vehicle. Further it is not a case where a small quantity was kept by Sunil with him only. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants no interference. All the appeals therefore fail and are hereby dismissed.