JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant assailing his conviction dated July 27, 2009, under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act, 1985) and sentence dated July 28, 2009, of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.1 lakh in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year more subject to Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) for setting off the period of detention passed by the Additional Judge Cum Judge Special Court under NDPS Act, 1985, Cooch Behar in NDPS Case No. 9 of 2008. The backdrop of the case in the barest outline is stated as under:- The PW 2, (informant), posted at Tufanganj Police Station, Cooch Behar, at that material point of time, as Officer-in-Charge, received an information on March 12, 2008, at 04.15 hours, from one secret source over telephone that the appellant and one Gobinda Barman of Kamat Fulbari, had boarded a vehicle (a bus bearing registration no.WB-63/1842 and plying from Tufanganj to Siluguri under the name and style “Anandam” (hereinafter referred to as the said bus), from Deocharai More with huge quantity of contraband article “ganja” and they would proceed towards Siliguri. Immediately, he diarized the above information in General Diary of the above Police Station under entry no.583. The Superintendent of Police, Cooch Behar, and Circle Inspector, Cooch Behar–Sadar, were informed of. He requested the Sub Divisional officer, Tufanganj, Cooch Behar, to depute one Magistrate in case of necessity. The PW 2 reached Chilkhana with his raiding team within 15 minutes. The aforesaid raiding team intercepted and started searching the said bus at Chilakhana, District-Cooch Behar, at 05.15 hours on the same day. Recovered illicit article (ganja) from two bags kept on the roof-top of the said bus. The appellant was a passenger of the said bus and the aforesaid two bags were kept on the roof-top of the said bus by the PW 8 on the instruction of the appellant. The bags were opened in presence of the PW 14, the then Deputy Magistrate, Tufangunj Sub-Division, Cooch Behar and local people. Contraband article was found inside the aforesaid two bags. Weighment of the above contraband article was done in a computerized weighing machine of PW 11. The bags were opened in presence of the PW 14, the then Deputy Magistrate, Tufangunj Sub-Division, Cooch Behar and local people. Contraband article was found inside the aforesaid two bags. Weighment of the above contraband article was done in a computerized weighing machine of PW 11. From one of the aforesaid bags (a lylon DE=O=ON) two packets were recovered containing “ganja” measuring 12 kg 150 gms and 1 kg 100 gms respectively and two other packets were found inside the second bag (Corallite bag) containing “ganja” measuring 10 kg 450 gms and 1 kg 750 gms respectively, the appellant failed to produce any valid document in support of possessing and carrying the aforesaid illicit articles. Those articles were seized and labelled after preparing sample packets containing samples of 100 gms. each and seizure lists obtaining signatures of PW 7 and PW 8 as witnesses in presence of the PW 14, the then Deputy Magistrate, Tufangunj Sub-Division, Cooch Behar. The appellant was arrested in presence of witnesses. The aforesaid articles were also seized in presence of the witnesses. A rough sketch map of the place of occurrence was prepared. Photograph of the accused person and the seized bags along with others was taken with the help of Digital Camera. Personal properties, namely Rs. 2,992/- in Indian currency and a Samsung Mobile Phone with Sim No. 9734997505 were also seized. On the basis of a complaint lodged by PW 2, Tufanganj P.S. F.I.R No.22/08 dated March 12, 2008 at 09.40 hours was drawn, on the basis of G.D.E. No.598. The complaint was lodged against the appellant for carrying contraband article (ganja) in violation of Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The alamat was kept in the malkhana. The PW 15 was engaged for investigating into the above matter. The FSL report bearing no.SDCRL/AR/385 dated April 3, 2008 was obtained from State Drugs Control & Research Laboratory. According to the above report, drug purported to be contained in sample: Ganja, Mark: A & B (Gross weight of the samples Ex-A=82 gms., Ex-B=88 gms.). PW 15 submitted charge-sheet No.50/08 dated May 3, 2008 against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant on June 13, 2008 for commissioning offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Fifteen Prosecution witnesses adduced oral evidence as also exhibited documentary evidence. PW 15 submitted charge-sheet No.50/08 dated May 3, 2008 against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant on June 13, 2008 for commissioning offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Fifteen Prosecution witnesses adduced oral evidence as also exhibited documentary evidence. Apart from PW 2 (the informant) and the leader of the raiding team, the Investigating Officer (PW 15) and the Deputy Magistrate, Tufanganj Sub-Division, District-Cooch Behar, (PW 14), there were seven official witnesses and five natural witnesses who adduced evidence as prosecution witnesses. After taking into consideration the charge-sheet, charge framed against the appellant, evidence (both oral and documentary) as also the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction as also the impugned sentence. It is submitted by Mr. Prabir Majumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment, order of conviction and the sentence cannot be sustained in law for the following reasons:- (i) There were major contradictions with regard to seizure of the contraband articles in question as also the quantum contraband article seized in between the FIR, evidence of PW 2, PW 14. The quantity of seized article (ganja) was not mentioned in the question (no.9) put to the appellant for recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (ii) The quantum of seized article (ganja) was less than the commercial quantity in accordance with the provisions of Clauses (viii) and (xxiiia) of Section 2 of the said NDPS Act, 1985, read with the table (serial no. 55) made thereunder. According to the evidence of PW 2, the total quantity of the seized article “ganja” was 18 kg 400 gms. The quantity of seized article (ganja) was not mentioned in the question (no.9) put to the appellant for recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (iii) There were major contradictions with regard to the oral evidences of the prosecution witnesses with regard to number of bags containing “ganja” possessed by the appellant and placed on the roof-top of the said bus under reference. According to PW 4, one bag was seized from the roof-top of the said bus under reference and another bus arrived at the place of occurrence with only one passenger within a short period of time. Contraband article (ganja) was recovered from that bus also. According to PW 4, one bag was seized from the roof-top of the said bus under reference and another bus arrived at the place of occurrence with only one passenger within a short period of time. Contraband article (ganja) was recovered from that bus also. PW 5 did not witnessed placing the seized bags on the roof top of the said bus at the instance of the appellant and unloading of the same bags on the instruction of the raiding team by PW 8. PW 7 (conductor of the said bus) was not an eyewitness of placing the seized bags on the roof-top at the instance of the appellant. PW 9 and PW 11 were sitting inside the said bus and did not witness of placing of the seized bags and unloading of the same by PW 8. Similarly, none of the other official witnesses or the seizure list witnesses and the PW 11, who had supplied the computerised weighing machine for weighment of the seized article, witnessed the placing of the seized bags on the roof-top of the said bus by the PW 8 at the instance of the appellant. (iv) There was violation of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The search and seizure of the appellant in person was not conducted in presence of PW 14, the Deputy Magistrate. Further a sum of Rs.2,992/- in Indian currency and a mobile phone (Samsung) was recovered and seized from the body of the appellant. (v) The statement of the accused person was not recorded adhering to the provision of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Separate specific relevant questions were not put to the appellant. No question regarding contradiction of the contents of FIR, evidence of PW 2 and that of PW 14 in respect of the quantity of seized “ganja” was put to the appellant. (vi) In reply to question no.6, the appellant stated that he was not present in the said bus at the material point of time and he was arrested from his house when no Executive Magistrate was present, was not considered by the learned trial Judge in accordance with law. (vi) In reply to question no.6, the appellant stated that he was not present in the said bus at the material point of time and he was arrested from his house when no Executive Magistrate was present, was not considered by the learned trial Judge in accordance with law. The reply of the appellant to question no.7 recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of seizure of the mobile (Samsung) and Rs.2,992/- in Indian currency from the house of the appellant was not considered by the learned trial Judge in accordance with law. On the other hand, it was submitted by Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned State advocate, that carrying of the seized article (ganja) of commercial quantity (25 kg 450 gms) by the appellant and his arrest was proved from the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and corroboration of the same from the documentary evidence. It was further submitted by him that the discrepancies, in between the evidence of prosecution witness, if any, were minor in nature. With regard to the non-compliance of the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, it was submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the conviction of the appellant was based upon the seizure of contraband article (ganja) from his two bags which were recovered from the roof-top of the said bus and not on the basis of recovery of any illicit article from the appellant of his person. It was further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that there was no material on record to show that the violation of the provision of Section 50(1) had ever been questioned at any stage of trial. With regard to violation of the provision of Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it was submitted by Mr. Banerjee that reply to the relevant questions were recorded. According to him, mere claim of the appellant of his arrest and seizure of his personal money and mobile phone from the residence was raised in course of recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. But the prejudice has to be seen from the evidence (both oral and documentary). Therefore, a mere dispute with regard to the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the material point of time, his arrest there from and recovery of his personal money and mobile phone was claimed and not shown from the evidence. Therefore, a mere dispute with regard to the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the material point of time, his arrest there from and recovery of his personal money and mobile phone was claimed and not shown from the evidence. No argument was advanced before the learned trial Judge on behalf of the appellant in this regard. Nor any pleading is available in this appeal with regard to the aforesaid question of fact. According to Mr. Banerjee, there is no scope of interference with the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence thereof. Reliance is placed by Mr. Banerjee on the decisions of State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, reported in 2005 (1) SCC (Cri) 943, Madan Lal vs. State of H.P. reported in 2003 (7) SCC 465, Gian Chand vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2013 (14) SCC 420 and Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 (5) SCC 722 in support of his above submissions. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and we have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case. In order to examine the decision making process of the learned trial Judge in convicting the appellant, the settled propositions of law for final analysis of the evidence, which are available on record, are discussed at the very outset. In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Jahangir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karan Singh, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged, the Court has to judge the evidence available on record by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus witnesses. Every case in final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” (Emphasis supplied) It was further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. -Vs.- M.K. Antony, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 505 , that in appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to be more particular to analyze keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole for the purpose of evaluating them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trival matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weightly and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.” The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed in State of U.P. vs. Lekh Raj, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 247 , that discrepancy should be distinguished from contradiction. In the depositions of witnesses, normal discrepancies were obvious. Hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of the context here and there from the evidence, touching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejections of the evidence as a whole. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the courts. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. This Court in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala held that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagadish v. State of M.P. this Court held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person.” (Emphasis supplied) In analyzing the evidence available on record, witnesses can be broadly categorized in three categories, viz., unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. It has also the time honoured proposition of law that in a case in which witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Reference may be made to the decision of C.M. Sharma vs. State of Andrapradesh, reported in (2000) 15 SCC 1 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “18. Further, Corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorised in three categories VIZ. unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. Further, Corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorised in three categories VIZ. unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable. In case of a partly reliable witness, the Court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Seeking corroboration in all circumstance of the evidence of a witness forced to give bribe may lead to absurd result. Bribe is not taken in public view and, therefore, there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of brive. As in the instant case, a shadow witness did accompany the contractor but the appellant did not allow him to be present in chamber. Acceptance of this submission in abstract will encourage the bribe-taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of prosecution Law cannot countenance such a situation.” (Emphasis supplied). It will not be out of context to refer to a judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court presided over by the Justice Samir Kumar Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was) passed in the matter of Afzauddin Ansary & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal, reported in 1997 (2) Crimes 53 Cal., that a man may lie but a document will never lie. The above proposition has to be kept in mind while considering a number of documentary evidence and oral evidence. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- “20. A well-known dicta has been laid down not only by the apex Court of our country but also by the Privy Council that a man may lie but a document will never lie. It is a well-known adage that one swallow does not make a summer but it is a case where one swallow makes a summer. The question arises in this way as it gyrates the whole issue where the evidence as to recognition is a subsequent creation by the machination of the Ansaries. Exhibit-5 the copy of the general diary book projects an unnatural shadow about recognition of any one of the appellants before us. A silence has been maintained in the said exhibit where none of the names of the appellants found their room in the general diary book. …. …. …. Exhibit-5 the copy of the general diary book projects an unnatural shadow about recognition of any one of the appellants before us. A silence has been maintained in the said exhibit where none of the names of the appellants found their room in the general diary book. …. …. …. ….” (Emphasis supplied) According to the final analysis of evidence by the learned trial Judge, the PW 2 intercepted the said bus on the basis of one source information. He found the appellant inside the said bus amongst other passengers. He confirmed from the appellant that he (the appellant) had boarded on the said bus from Deochari More. From the evidence of two natural witnesses, i.e. PW 7 (conductor of the said bus) and PW 9 (Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Tufangunj Police Station, who had been going to his home at Darjeeling boarding on the said bus) it was evident that the appellant instructed the PW 8 (the Khalasi of the said bus) to keep his two luggage bags on the roof-top of the said bus. From the evidence of PW 8, it came to the light that he had unloaded the aforesaid two bags of the appellant at Chilkhana which were searched and seized by the raiding party upon recovery of seized contraband article (ganja) in presence of the PW 14 (the Deputy Magistrate concerned) amongst other witness. The weigment of the aforesaid illicit article was done in the computerized weighing machine of the PW 11. Then, contraband articles seized from one bag (Corrallite bag) containing total quantity of “ganja” of 12 kg 200 gms (10 kg 450 gms + 1 kg 750 gms) was prepared and marked as MAT. Ext.I/I one the label. Similarly, contraband articles seized from the other bag (a lylon DE=O=ON) containing total quantity of “ganja” of 13 kg 250 gms (12 kg 150 gms + 1 kg 100 gms) was prepared and marked as MAT. Ext.II/I on the label. Thereafter two sample packets containing 100 gms of “ganja” were prepared taking 100 gms of “ganja” from each of the aforesaid two packets of seized contraband articles “ganja”. From the FSL report bearing no.SDCRL/AR/385 dated April 3, 2008, it was proved that drug purported to be contained in sample (Marked A & B) was “ganja”. Ext.II/I on the label. Thereafter two sample packets containing 100 gms of “ganja” were prepared taking 100 gms of “ganja” from each of the aforesaid two packets of seized contraband articles “ganja”. From the FSL report bearing no.SDCRL/AR/385 dated April 3, 2008, it was proved that drug purported to be contained in sample (Marked A & B) was “ganja”. With regard to the first contention of the appellant that there were major contradictions in respect of the quantum of contraband article seized from the appellant, it appears from the FIR (Ext.-7) that the total of seized contraband article was 25 kg 450 gms. One bag (a lylon DE=O=ON) contained “ganja” measuring 12 kg 150 gms and 1 kg 100 gms respectively packed in two packets and two other packets were kept inside the second bag (Corallite) containing “ganja” measuring 10 kg 450 gms and 1 kg 750 gms. It was corroborating with the entry no.22 of the malkhana register .The above malkhana register was exhibited (Ext-12) by PW 15. In the seizure list (Ext.-3) proved by PW 2 in Court, the quantum of seized “ganja” was also corroborating with the above documentary evidence. The above seizure list was proved by the PW 2 and corroborated by PW 1 and also by seizure witnesses PW 7 and PW 8. Necessary to point out that the PW 3 was declared hostile by the prosecution but his evidence could not be treated as washed off the evidence on record. His evidence in connection with preparation of labels (MAT Exts. I/2 & II/2) in presence of PW 14 was corroborating with that of PW 1, PW 2 as also other concerned prosecution witnesses. So, the above evidence remains admissible in trial on the basis of the well accepted proposition of law as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajju @ Karan Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in 2012 (2) SCC (Cri) 440. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence (oral and documentary) was unimpeachably speaking of the quantity of “ganja”. There was no cross-examination with regard to the above examination. So, the quantity of the above illicit article available from the evidence of PW 2, PW 14 should not have been said to be contradiction of material dimension on the basis of the settled proposition of law as discussed hereinabove. There was no cross-examination with regard to the above examination. So, the quantity of the above illicit article available from the evidence of PW 2, PW 14 should not have been said to be contradiction of material dimension on the basis of the settled proposition of law as discussed hereinabove. Regarding non-mentioning of the quantum of seized contraband article while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., it is the settled proposition of law as laid down by a three judge Bench Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wasim Khan vs. State of U.P., reported in A.I.R. 1956 SC 400, that every error or omission in compliance with the provisions of Section 342 0f the old Cr.P.C. (Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) does not necessarily vitiate trial The accused must show that some prejudice has been caused or was likely to have been caused to him. The relevant portions of the above decision is quoted below:- “5. . . . . The statement of the appellant before the Magistrate is admissible under S. 287, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate pointedly asked the appellant as to whether he along with the other accused murdered Ram Dukarey and had taken his property to which the appellant replied in the negative. It was not necessary for the Sessions Judge to specifically repeat the same when the appellant admitted his statement before the Committing Magistrate as correct when read out to him. Apart from this, when the statement of the appellant to the Sessions Judge is read as a whole, it clearly shows that the appellant knew what the accusation against him was and he offered an explanation for the disappearance of Ram Dularey from his cart and for his possession of the deceased’s goods. There is no justification for supposing that there had been any prejudice caused to the appellant on account of improper or insufficient recording of his statement by the Sessions Judge under S. 342, Criminal P.C.” It is also the time honoured principle of law that in a case where the accused abjured his guilt and desired to face the trial, the propriety of the order of conviction could not be questioned on the basis of statement made by the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in absence of appropriate cross examination of the prosecution witnesses concerned. The conviction could not be questioned due to failure to raise objection at the time of exhibiting relevant documents and/or failure to put forth any substantial plea. Reference may be made to the decision of Parbin Ali vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 81 and relevant portion of the abo decision is quoted below:- “4. The accused abjured their guilt and desired to face the trial. During the trial, the prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined nine witnesses and brought on exhibit number of documents. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They had not put forth any substantial plea except a bald denial and chose not to adduce any evidence. 5. The learned trial Judge, considering the entire evidence, placing reliance on the oral dying declaration of the deceased and taking note of the weapon used and the nature of the injury caused, came to hold that the prosecution had been able to substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted them and imposed the sentence. 6. In appeal, the High Court took note of the fact that there was no direct evidence to implicate the accused and the minor omissions or contradictions and discrepancies which had been highlighted by the defence did not create any kind of dent in the prosecution version; that ample explanation had been offered by the prosecution for not getting the dying declaration recorded as the deceased was lying on the roadside and could not be taken to a hospital; and that there was no reason to disbelieve that oral dying declaration, and the same being absolutely credible, the judgment and conviction rendered by he learned trial Judge did not warrant any interference.” In the instant case, no cross examination of the prosecution witnesses at the appropriate stage of adducing evidence, non-raising of objection at the time of exhibiting relevant documentary evidence, failure to produce proper defense witness, to take substantial plea to substantiate some amount of prejudice stood in the way of vitiating the trial or to interfere with the conviction of the appellant on that ground. On the basis of the above discussion, there was no substance in the contention of the appellant that quantum of the seized “ganja” was less than the commercial quantity. On the basis of the above discussion, there was no substance in the contention of the appellant that quantum of the seized “ganja” was less than the commercial quantity. Regarding the next contention of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 were relevant for witnessing the presence of the appellant inside the said bus. The evidence of PW 7 was relevant for corroboration of the evidence of PW 8 to the extent that he (PW 8) kept the seized bags of the appellant on the roof-top of the said bus. Similarly, the evidence of PW 11 was relevant in respect of weigment of the seized article. Their evidence were not witnesses concerned with identification of the seized bags of the appellant. The identification of those bags was proved by the PW 8 considering his evidence as wholly reliable in the light of the decision of C. M. Sharma (supra). The learned Court below was also right in adhering to settled proposition of law in Lekh Raj (supra) avoiding to hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of the context here and there from the evidence. Regarding the non-compliance of the mandate of Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, as contended by the appellant, the proposition of law has already been discussed by this Division Bench in Biswajit Das & Anr. vs. The state of West Bengal, reported in (2015) 3 CAL LT 359 (HC), taking into consideration the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 as also a decision of Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of M.P., reported in (2004) 5 SCC 188 . The relevant portion of the decision of Biswajit Das & Anr. (supra) is quoted below:- “34. According to the above decision, inter alia, empowered officer or duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concern of his right under sub-section (1) of section 50 of NDPS Act. (supra) is quoted below:- “34. According to the above decision, inter alia, empowered officer or duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concern of his right under sub-section (1) of section 50 of NDPS Act. A search made by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall be taken before a Gazetted Officer of Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the person, during a search conduct in violation of the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act. Whether the provisions of section 50 are mandatory or directory, no opinion is expressed in the above judgment as to whether the provisions of section 50 are mandatory or directory but failure to inform the person concerned of his right as emanating from sub-section (1) of section 50 may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in law. However, the prior information as mentioned herein above may not necessarily be in writing. Whether or not the safeguards provided in section 50 of the NDPS Act have been duly observed would have to be determined by the Court on the basis of the evidence laid at trial. 35. The word “person” in the above context is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment delivered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar reported in (2005) 4 SCC 350 . According to the above judgment the word “person” would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothing as also footwear. 36. The question of inclusion of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc. within the term “person” is answered in the above case considering the facts and circumstances of that case as follows:- “29. According to the above judgment the word “person” would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothing as also footwear. 36. The question of inclusion of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc. within the term “person” is answered in the above case considering the facts and circumstances of that case as follows:- “29. According to the case of the prosecution, Ram Niwas, SHO, Police Station Pilibanga received information that the accused who was including in smuggling of opium was standing at the bus-stand. A police party reached the main bus-stand at about 7.10 p.m. and found the accused standing with an attache in his hand. A written notice was then given to the accused that his attache case will be searched as information has been received that the same contains opium. He was also asked whether he would like the search to be conducted before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. This fact was also mentioned in the notice. The accused said that he did not want to be searched before any Magistrate or gazetted officer and the SHO could carry on the search. This statement of the accused was signed by him. The search of the attache revealed 5 Kg of opium. After conducting other formalities and investigation of the case, the accused was put up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years’ RI and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court by a very cryptic judgment held that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with as the accused was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused. 30. For the reasons discussed earlier, the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained as it was a case of search of an attache which was carried by the accused. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 5-10-2001 of the High Court is set aside. 30. For the reasons discussed earlier, the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained as it was a case of search of an attache which was carried by the accused. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 5-10-2001 of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) This was not in dispute that the conviction of the appellant was not based on recovery of illicit article from his body. That apart, his seized money and mobile phone were not part of the alamat in the trial. There was no cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any impropriety or infirmity in the decision making process of the learned Court below in this regard. The next contention of the appellant is the non-consideration of the statement of the appellant recorded in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in reply to question nos.6 and 7. The settled proposition of law in this regard has already been discussed hereinabove with reference to the decisions of Wasim Khan (supra) and Parbin Ali (supra). We would like to repeat and reiterate that in the instant case, no cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses at the appropriate stage of adducing evidence, non-raising of objection at the time of exhibiting relevant documentary evidence, failure to produce proper defense witness, to take substantial plea to substantiate some amount of prejudice stood in the way of vitiating the trial or to interfere with the conviction of the appellant on that ground. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to record that considering the gravity of the offence committed by the appellant as available from the evidence on record and its adverse effect on the society, we do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant for sentencing him with lesser punishment on him. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Let this judgment together with the Lower Court’s records be sent back to the learned Court below expeditiously. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.