JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 31.3.2009, rendered by the learned Special Judge (FTC), Chamba, H.P. in Sessions trial No. 44/2008, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), has been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 18.5.2008 at about 8:00 PM, HC Deepak Kumar, Const. Tilak Raj, Const. Ajay Kumar, SPO Tek Chand and SPO Jamal Deen were present at Zero Point, Jasourgarh in connection with traffic checking and Nakabandi. The accused was seen coming from Nakrod side. After seeing the police party, he tried to flee away. He was nabbed. He was carrying a polythene bag in his hand. The polythene bag was searched. It contained another polythene bag containing charas. Out of the recovered charas, two samples of 25 grams each were drawn which were separately parceled and sealed with seal impression “D”. The balance charas was put in those very polythene bags. It was parceled and sealed with seal “D”. Sample seal was separately taken and seal after use was handed over to Constable Ajay Kumar. NCB form was filled in on the spot. The accused was arrested. Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. FIR No. 62/08 was registered against the accused. All the three parcels i.e. two sample parcels and one big parcel were produced before ASI Mulakh Raj, the then SHO of PS Tissa for resealing, who resealed the parcels with seal “H” and thereafter deposited the same along with NCB form, sample seal and other related documents with the MHC. The samples were sent for chemical examination. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Addl. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. I.N. Mehta, Advocate, has supported the judgment of the trial Court dated 31.3.2009. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Tilak Raj testified that on 18.5.2008, he along with HC Deepak Kumar, Const. Ajay Kumar, SPO Jamaldeen and SPO Tek Chand was present at Zero Point, Jasourgarh at about 8:00 PM. They left the Police Station at about 6:45 AM for traffic checking and Nakabandi. At about 8:00 PM while they were present at Zero Point, Jasourgarh, one person was seen coming from Nakrod side. After seeing the police party, he tried to flee away. He was nabbed. He was carrying a polythene bag in his hand. The polythene bag was searched by HC Deepak Kumar. It contained another polythene bag containing charas. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. NCB form was also filled in on the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that accused was noticed at a distance of 50-60 meters when they saw him. According to him, the search of the accused was conducted at that place where he was apprehended which was at a distance of 60 meters from Zero Point, Jasourgarh. He did not know that Village Seri was situated at a distance of 150 meters from Zero Point. He denied the suggestion that Village Seri was visible from Zero Point. According to him, it took about one and a half hour to complete the proceedings on the spot. Jamaldeen had carried the rukka. The police was carrying only one tourch. 7. PW-2 SPO Jamaldeen also corroborated the statement of PW-1 Tilak Raj, the manner in which the accused was apprehended and codal formalities were completed on the spot. He testified that rukka was prepared by the IO and handed over to him for being taken to the Police Station at 8:30 PM. The police was carrying only one tourch. 7. PW-2 SPO Jamaldeen also corroborated the statement of PW-1 Tilak Raj, the manner in which the accused was apprehended and codal formalities were completed on the spot. He testified that rukka was prepared by the IO and handed over to him for being taken to the Police Station at 8:30 PM. Rukka is mark-Y. He left the spot on foot and after covering some distance, he took lift from Madhuwad on bike and went to the Police Station and handed over the rukka to the SHO. According to him, the accused was noticed at a distance of five meters when the police party saw him. The accused was nabbed within one and a half minutes after noticing him. The accused was given option before effecting the alleged recovery by the IO to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused consented to be searched by the IO. He did not remember whether or not any memo was prepared on the spot. He admitted that from Zero Point towards Madhuwad, village Seri was situated at a distance of 150 yards. He also admitted that village Seri was visible from Zero Point, Jasourgarh. 8. PW-3 Mohinder Singh deposed that on 18.5.2008 at about 10:15 PM, HC Deepak Kumar produced three parcels i.e. one big parcel stated to be containing 950 grams of charas and two small parcels stated to be containing 25 grams of charas each sealed with seal “D” i.e. five seals on big parcel and three seals on sample parcel, before ASI Mulakh Raj who resealed all the three parcels with seal “H” by affixing five seals on big parcel and three seals each on sample parcel in his presence and in the presence of Const. Tilak Raj. Memo Ext. PW-3/A was prepared to this effect. The case property was handed over to the MHC of the Police Station. 9. PW-4 HC Madan Lal deposed that on 18.5.2008 ASI Mulakh Raj deposited with him one big parcel stated to be containing 950 grams of charas and two small parcels stated to be containing 25 grams of charas each sealed with seal “D” and resealed with seal “H” sample seal “D” and “H” and NCB form for being kept in the malkhana. He entered the same in the malkhana register. The abstract of the malkhana register is Ext. He entered the same in the malkhana register. The abstract of the malkhana register is Ext. PW- 4/A. The case property was sent to FSL, Junga through Const. Yog Raj vide RC No. 21 of 2008. He admitted in his cross-examination that in the malkhana register, he has not mentioned that NCB form and sample seals were deposited along with the parcel. Volunteered that they were not the case property and were not required to be entered in the malkhana register. He also filled in the relevant column of date in the NCB form at the time of sending the sample to FSL, Junga. 10. PW-6 Om Parkash testified that on 19.5.2008, Const. Tilak Raj handed over copy of rukka of this case to him. Original rukka was Ext. PW-6/A. He entered in the receipt register at Sr. No. 4153-BD/08 dated 19.5.2008. 11. PW-7 Const. Yog Raj deposed that on 20.5.2008, MHC Madan Lal handed over to him one part of the sample along with two sample seals and the case property for being deposited in the FSL, Junga vide RC No. 21 of 2008. He carried the same to FSL Junga and returned RC to the MHC under receipt. 12. PW-9 ASI Mulakh Raj testified that on 18.5.2008, he was working as officiating SHO in PS Bharmour. He has resealed the sample and case property with seal “H” and memo Ext. PW-3/A was prepared to this effect. 13. PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar testified the manner in which the accused was apprehended, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed on the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was at a distance of 5-10 meters when the accused was seen by the police. He admitted that Village Seri was at a distance of 150-200 meters from zero point. Weights and scale were with him in the IO kit. Scale was of old type having Sangli (chain). Rukka was sent at 8:30 PM and it was written at 8:27 PM. They were carrying three tourches with them. He also admitted that if IO kit is taken from the Police Station, reference is made in the departure report by the MHC. 14. The case of the prosecution, precisely, is that the accused was apprehended at 8:00 PM on 18.5.2008. He was carrying a polythene bag. He tried to run away. He was nabbed. The polythene bag was searched. He also admitted that if IO kit is taken from the Police Station, reference is made in the departure report by the MHC. 14. The case of the prosecution, precisely, is that the accused was apprehended at 8:00 PM on 18.5.2008. He was carrying a polythene bag. He tried to run away. He was nabbed. The polythene bag was searched. It contained another polythene bag containing charas. The charas was weighed with the traditional scale. It weighed 1 kgs. The sampling and sealing proceedings were completed on the spot. The case property was produced before PW-9 ASI Mulakh Raj for resealing. He resealed the same with seal “H”. 15. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused by recording findings that there were major contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses, independent witnesses were not associated and in Ext. PW-5/A, it is not mentioned that I.O. was carrying the I.O. kit with him. 16. PW-1 Tilak Raj has testified that accused was noticed at a distance of 50-60 meters when they saw him. However, PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar deposed that accused was noticed at a distance of 5-10 meters. According to PW-1 Tilak Raj, the search of the accused was conducted at that place where he was apprehended which was at a distance of 60 meters from Zero Point, Jasourgarh. I.O PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar deposed that all the police officials had seen the accused together. He was at a distance of 5-10 meters when they saw him. These are minor contradictions. These cannot be termed as major contradictions. The accused was nabbed on 18.5.2008 and the statements of PW-1 Tilak Raj and PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar were recorded on 23.3.2009 and 25.3.2009, respectively in the Court. There is bound to be loss of memory with the passage of time. The witnesses cannot remember each and every fact with mathematical precision. 17. According to PW-1 Tilak Raj, I.O was carrying only one tourch, however, PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar deposed that they were carrying three tourches. It is a minor contradiction. The accused was nabbed on 18.5.2008 at 8:00 PM. The place where the accused was apprehended was isolated and desolate. It was not possible, in these circumstances, to join the independent witnesses, though Village Seri was at a distance of 150 meters from Zero Point, Jasourgarh. The statements of official witnesses can also be relied upon, if they inspire confidence. The accused was nabbed on 18.5.2008 at 8:00 PM. The place where the accused was apprehended was isolated and desolate. It was not possible, in these circumstances, to join the independent witnesses, though Village Seri was at a distance of 150 meters from Zero Point, Jasourgarh. The statements of official witnesses can also be relied upon, if they inspire confidence. In the instant case, the statements of the official witnesses inspire confidence and are trustworthy. 18. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 , have held that normal discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time and due to mental disposition. Trivial matters which do not affect core of prosecution case should not be made a ground on which evidence is rejected in its entirety. Their lordships have held as follows: “18. The High Court has given undue importance to the minor contradictions in the statement of Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram (PW.5) as one of them had stated that the I.O. reached the place of occurrence at 10.15 p.m. and another has stated that he reached about mid night. The incident occurred in mid October 1979. This is the time when the winter starts and in such a fact-situation no person is supposed to keep record of exact time particularly in a rural area. Everybody deposes according to his estimate. More so, the statement had been recorded after a long lapse of time. Therefore, a margin of 1½ hours remained merely a trivial issue. 30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152 ; Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331 ; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287]. 31. The High Court has also fallen into error in giving significance to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of the morning incident all the accused had not been named in the complaint/NCR.” 19. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 298 , have held that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “12. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “12. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE: 13. In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held: “In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; Pudhu Raja & Anr. v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, JT 2012 (9) SC 252 and Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557 . 14. Thus, it is evident that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence.” 20. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu alias Madhuranatha and another vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 419 , have held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution must not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Irrelevant details which do not, in any way, corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. The Court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter. Their lordships have further held that the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. There can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “15. There can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “15. It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the depositions of witnesses like the timings when deceased was seen last with the appellants and the distances of places etc. do not tally. Thus, their evidence cannot be relied upon. 16. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8) SC 181, this Court considered the issue of discrepancies in the depositions. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize 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 witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, so as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. A similar view has been re-iterated in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 ; State Rep. by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152 and Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191 . 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in some of the recoveries, though a large number of people were available, but only police personnel were made recovery witnesses. Thus, the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful. 18. AIR 2009 SC 152 and Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191 . 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in some of the recoveries, though a large number of people were available, but only police personnel were made recovery witnesses. Thus, the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful. 18. The term ‘witness’ means a person who is capable of providing information by way of deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral statement, or a statement in writing, made or given in Court, or otherwise. In Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 1930 , this Court dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought. (See also: Paras Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1212 ; Balbir Singh v. State, (1996) 11 SCC 139 ; Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CBI), AIR 1998 SC 201; M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, AIR 2003 SC 4311 and Ravinderan v. Superintendent of Customs, AIR 2007 SC 2040 ). 19. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause to bear such enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. 20. This Court in Laxmibai (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. 20. This Court in Laxmibai (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 1204 examined a similar issue and held: “Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See: Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 226 ; State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1328 ; Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207 and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096 ).” 21. PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar testified that he was carrying the kit with him when the charas was recovered. He has weighed the same. AIR 1998 SC 1328 ; Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207 and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096 ).” 21. PW-10 HC Deepak Kumar testified that he was carrying the kit with him when the charas was recovered. He has weighed the same. The omission of the mentioning of I.O. kit in Ext. PW-5/A is not material. Since the charas was recovered from the polythene bag carried by the accused, the personal search of the accused was also not mandatory. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved that the contraband was recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2008 dated 31.3.2009 is set aside. The accused is convicted under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. The accused be heard on quantum of sentence on 29.8.2016. Production warrants be issued accordingly. 23. However, before parting with the judgment, it would be necessary to consider Sections 8, 25, 27, 42, 46, 47, 48 & 59 of the ND & PS Act. Section 8 of the ND & PS Act lays down that no person shall cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant or cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant or produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes. Section 46 provides that every holder of land shall give immediate information to any officer of the police or of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 of all the opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant which may be illegally cultivated within his land and every such holder of land who knowingly neglects to give such information, shall be liable to punishment. Section 47 lays down that Every officer of the Government and every panch, sarpanch and other village officer of whatever description shall give immediate information to any officer of the Police or of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 when it may come to his knowledge that any land has been illegally cultivated with the opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant, and every such officer of the Government, panch, sarpanch and other village officer who neglects to give such information, shall be liable to punishment. Section 48 lays down that any Metropolitan Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate of the first class or any Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or any officer of a gazetted rank empowered under section 42, may order attachment of any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant which he has reason to believe to have been illegally cultivated and while doing so may pass such order (including an order to destroy the crop) as he thinks fit. Section 27 provides punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. Section 59 of the ND & PS Act provides that any officer, on whom any duty has been imposed by or under this Act and who ceases or refuses to perform or withdraws himself from the duties of his office shall, unless he has obtained the express written permission of his official superior or has other lawful excuse for so doing, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. The State Machinery has failed to enforce Sections 8, 27, 46, 47, 48 and 59 of the ND & PS Act. The enforcement of these mandatory provisions would reduce the menace of drugs. Thus, it is necessary to issue following mandatory directions to prevent and combat the use of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and illicit traffic of the same:- (i) The State Machinery is directed to ensure that whosoever consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is punished under Section 27 of the ND & PS Act. (ii) Every land holder in the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed to give immediate information to police officer or revenue agencies of his area of the growth of opium poppy, cannabis plant which is illegally cultivated within his land. (ii) Every land holder in the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed to give immediate information to police officer or revenue agencies of his area of the growth of opium poppy, cannabis plant which is illegally cultivated within his land. It is made clear that in case this information is not supplied immediately to the police officer and revenue officials, proceedings be initiated against them under the ND & PS Act. (iii) Every Officer of the Government Machinery and every ward member/Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, the elected representatives of Municipal Councils/Municipal Corporations, the Chairman and the Members of the Panchayat Samities and the Chairman and Members of the Zila Parishad and other revenue officials/officers of the patwar circle, including Kanungo, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar, shall give immediate information to police officer when it comes to their knowledge that any land has been illegally cultivated with opium poppy and cannabis plants. In case these officers neglect to give such information, they are liable to be punished under the relevant provisions of the ND & PS Act. (iv) Every Metropolitan Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate of the first class or any Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or any officer of a gazetted rank empowered under section 42 is directed to exercise his authority to order attachment of opium or cannabis plants which are illegally cultivated, including any other orders, as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of each case. (v) All the District Forest Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh are directed to detect and destroy opium and cannabis plants grown in the forests within their jurisdiction by constituting special teams for preventing and combating abuse of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. (vi) All the officers of the Departments mentioned in Section 42 of the ND & PS Act are ordered to assist each other in carrying out the provisions of this Act, as contemplated under Section 56 of the ND & PS Act. (vii) The State Machinery is also directed to take action against any officer who refuses to perform or withdraws himself from the duties assigned under Section 59 of the ND & PS Act. (vii) The State Machinery is also directed to take action against any officer who refuses to perform or withdraws himself from the duties assigned under Section 59 of the ND & PS Act. (viii) The respondent-State is directed to ensure that only officers of absolute integrity are appointed as Investigating Officers under the ND & PS Act in highly vulnerable districts to the illicit traffic of drugs, namely, Kangra, Shimla, Kullu, Chamba and Mandi, after appraisal of their ACRs. The Vigilance Department is also directed to periodically verify, after every six months, the movable and immovable assets of the officers/officials posted in vulnerable areas, mentioned hereinabove.