JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. This appeal has been registered under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C. basing upon a letter of the appellant from the Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar. 2. In this appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No.897 of 2001 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 21 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1.00 lakh, in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. 3. On 23.06.2001, the Inspector in-charge of Madhupatna Police Station (PW-5) got telephonic information that a young man wearing a black jean pant and stripe shirt moving from the direction of Gopalpur towards Rousapatna in one numberless Luna Super Moped. He was carrying brown sugar. It was the Srigundicha day. Upon receiving the information, PW-5 making a Station Diary entry and informing the matter to Superintendent of Police, Cuttack as well as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuttack City, proceeded towards Link Road crossing along with his Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-1), Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and other staff. He also requested one Buli @ Trinath Sahu and Jatia Sethi (PW-2) to be the witnesses. At that time, seeing the appellant, PW-5 signaled him to stop. But the appellant attempted to escape from the spot speeding his Luna. On chase, the IIC and his staff along with the independent witnesses could be able to apprehend him. Thereafter, the IIC expressing his purpose of apprehending the appellant asked his identity. At this, the appellant disclosed his identity as Bishnu Ch. Das of Old Rousapatna. Then I.I.C. (PW-5) asked the option of the appellant to be searched by an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused opted to be searched in presence of either of the two. The D.S.P. City Cuttack, (PW8), who was also present at the spot, sent requisition to the S.D.O. to depute an Executive Magistrate. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate (PW-4) arrived at the spot. Upon disclosing their identity and asking the consent of the appellant to be searched, the appellant consented in writing. The D.S.P. City Cuttack, (PW8), who was also present at the spot, sent requisition to the S.D.O. to depute an Executive Magistrate. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate (PW-4) arrived at the spot. Upon disclosing their identity and asking the consent of the appellant to be searched, the appellant consented in writing. The I.I.C. (PW-5) then gave his personal search in presence of other persons present there, but no incriminating materials was found, from the I.I.C and then he took the personal search of the appellant and during search he could found one polythene packet containing brown sugar from the left side pocket of the pant of the accused along with one cell phone. On weighment at the spot, it is found that the packet weighed 170 grams along with the brown sugar. The net content of brown sugar was 169 grams. Accordingly, he prepared two samples, each weighing 5 grams of brown sugar and kept the same in separate polythene packets and the residue were also packed and then the same were sealed in presence of the witnesses. The signature of the D.S.P. and the Executive Magistrate were taken on all the packets including the cell phone; the seizure list was also prepared. The brass seal used for sealing purpose was handed over to one Trinath Sahu and on arrival at the Police Station at 3.20 P.M., all the articles were kept in P.S. Malkhana. After making necessary entries in the station diary, the I.I.C. directed one S.I. Krupasindhu BIswal (PW-6) to take up the investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge under Section 21 (a) of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed and the appellant faced trial. 4. The plea of the defence was complete denial of his involvement in the incident. 5. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the then S.I. of Police, Madhupatna P.S., PW-1, one Jatia Sethi independent witness as PW-2, the police constable attached to Madhupatna P.S. on the date of alleged detection as PW-3, the then Tahasildar, who conducted search in the capacity of an Executive Magistrate, as PW-4, the then Inspector in-charge of Madhupatna P.S. as PW-5, PW-6 was the I.O., who took up investigation of the case on the direction of PW-5. PW-7 is the Officer, who took over the investigation from PW-5, as per the direction of the higher authority. PW-7 is the Officer, who took over the investigation from PW-5, as per the direction of the higher authority. PW-8 is the then D.S.P. Crimes. Taking into consideration, the materials available on record and contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae assailing the judgment and conviction and sentence, vehemently argued that the appellant was innocent. The independent witnesses were procured to implicate the appellant in the offence. The mandatory provisions of law for search, seizure, investigation and trial were not followed. As such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, defending the impugned judgment, contended that the evidence of PW-5, PW-6 as well as PW-7 goes to establish that all mandatory provisions of law has been scrupulously followed to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant. Further, no mandatory provision of law is violated in course of search, seizure, investigation as well as trial. As such, the impugned order needs no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and perused the materials on record. 9. On perusal of evidence of PW-5, the then I.I.C., Madhupatna P.S., he has supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Although learned counsel for the appellant raised objection with regard to the procedure of seizure on perusal of the deposition of PW-5, it reveals that at para-9 of the cross-examination, he has categorically denied the suggestion “…that at no point of time either the accd. was made of his right of being searched in presence of Executive Magistrate or G.Officer and that he never exercised his option in that regard….”. He also denied the suggestion that the Ext.3 was manipulated. Further, it is categorically stated by him that the contents of the seizure list was written at the spot and written option was given by the appellant in the presence of PW-5. No material could be placed by learned counsel for the appellant to discredit the evidence of PW-5. He also denied the suggestion that the Ext.3 was manipulated. Further, it is categorically stated by him that the contents of the seizure list was written at the spot and written option was given by the appellant in the presence of PW-5. No material could be placed by learned counsel for the appellant to discredit the evidence of PW-5. The evidence of PW-5 with regard to search and seizure has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-4, the Executive Magistrate, who in his statement, has stated in all unambiguous terms that on 23.06.2001, the search and seizure of the appellant took place around at 1.30 P.M. “We arrived there at Madhu Patna Chhak. On my arrival, the then I.I.C., Madhupatna P.S. and other police staff to be present there with three persons. They were in front of one Miss Orissa Radymade Garment Shop. The I.I.C. then disclosed the identity of those three persons to me and out of those three persons 2 were there to be witnesses, and the other one was detained on suspicion for possession of Narcotic drug and Psychotropic substances. I.I.C. told the name of the person detained on suspicion as Bishnu Chandra Das. (The witness identified the person to be the accused standing in the dock.) The name of the witnesses was disclosed by the I.I.C. to be Jatia Sethi and Trinath Sahu.” Thereafter, PW-4 took option of the accused regarding the personal search either in presence of the Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant expressed his intention to be searched in presence of either of the two. Then PW-4 reduced it into a writing; which is marked as Ext-3. Ext-3/1 is the signature of PW-4 and Ext-3/2 is the signature of the appellant therein. Thereafter, following due procedure of law, the I.I.C. was directed to conduct the search and found one packet of brown sugar from the left side pocket of the jean trouser of the appellant. He also vividly described the procedure in his evidence. In the cross-examination, no material could be brought out to doubt the process of search and seizure. The seizure witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer, namely, PW-6, the I.O. who initially took up the investigation deposed as under: “2. In my presence IIC, Sri Sharma drew up a plain paper FIR mentioning therein about the seizure of 170 gm. In the cross-examination, no material could be brought out to doubt the process of search and seizure. The seizure witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer, namely, PW-6, the I.O. who initially took up the investigation deposed as under: “2. In my presence IIC, Sri Sharma drew up a plain paper FIR mentioning therein about the seizure of 170 gm. of brown sugar from the possession of accused Bishnu Charan Das. Immediately took up investigation. Sri Sharma then handed over the plain paper FIR, other contemporaneous documents prepared by him relating to search and seizure to me. I also took charge of the custody of the accused and the sample packets (Two) containing brown sugar, packet containing residue brown sugar and packet containing empty polythene packets were also given to me by IIC, Sri Sharma. He also gave me the mobile phone, the wearing apparels of the accused and the luna moped to me.” “3. This is the FIR (plain paper) already marked ext.6. At the spot I examined IIC Sri Sharma. I also prepared a spot map. This is that sport map ext. 8. Then I examined other witnesses present at the spot. At 3.20 P.M. I returned to P.S. with the accused, seized contraband articles and other articles as well as the documents. Then I immediately kept the seized and sealed packets containing brown sugar in P.S. Malkhana. I then prepared a detail report and placed the same before the IIC to be sent to the Suptd. of Police through him. The detail report is already marked ext.7. I also prepared the extract of the station diary entry no.599 and 602 dt. 23.06.2001. Ext.9 is the sheet containing the extract of those station diary entries. Ext.9/1 and 9/2 are my necessary certificates. ascertained from the record of the P.S. that the accused was earlier forwarded in three case instituted under the provision of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. On 24.06.2001 I forwarded the accused in custody to court. I made a prayer to the court for unward dispatch of the sample packets and other seized articles to SFSL, Rasulgarh for chemical examination. Ext. 10 is the petition filed by me in that regard. As per the order of the court I produced sample packets in sealed condition and other seized articles in the court on 25.06.2001. I made a prayer to the court for unward dispatch of the sample packets and other seized articles to SFSL, Rasulgarh for chemical examination. Ext. 10 is the petition filed by me in that regard. As per the order of the court I produced sample packets in sealed condition and other seized articles in the court on 25.06.2001. The learned Magistrate handed over the seized sealed packets to me to produce the same before SFSL, Rasulgarh under his forwarding letter. I deputed Hav. D. Pradhan to deposit the sample packets of brown sugar at SFSL, Rasulgarh for chemical examination. On 24.07.2001 as per the order of S.P., Cuttack I made over the charge of investigation of the case to Inspector R.P. Mohanty, C.I.D., (CB), Cuttack. Ext.11 is the office copy of the forwarding letter of SDJM, Cuttack, forwarded to the Director, SFSL, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical analysis of the sample packets.” 10. Although he was cross-examined by the defence, except putting some ordinary suggestion and questions, nothing could be brought out from his mouth to raise any doubt with regard to the procedure of investigation, he conducted. PW-7 who took over the investigation from PW-6 completed the investigation and had submitted the charge-sheet. During his investigation, he received the chemical examination report (Ext.12) from S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh on 29.09.2001. PW-7 has also not been effectively cross-examined. On perusal of Ext.12, it reveals as follows: “…………..It contained, one sealed paper envelope marked as exhibit A-1. Exhibit A-1 was found to contain 5 grams of brown colour powder substance kept in a polythene packet said to be brown sugar.” RESULT OF EXAMINATION:- Exhibit A-1 was found to contain HEROIN (diacetylmorphine).” Thus, PW-6 and PW-7 as well the D.S.P. Crime Branch, PW-8 corroborated the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 in all material particulars. On a detailed reading of the materials available on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 23.06.2001, the appellant was detained at Madhupatna and on being searched, a packet containing 169 grams of brown sugar was detected from the left side pocket of the jean trouser. The quantity of contraband drug seized was 169 grams; hence it was much above the small quantity as notified. The persons, who conducted the search and seizure, are also duly authorized and also competent to conduct the search and seizure. Moreover, the defence does not dispute their authorization or competence search and seizure. The quantity of contraband drug seized was 169 grams; hence it was much above the small quantity as notified. The persons, who conducted the search and seizure, are also duly authorized and also competent to conduct the search and seizure. Moreover, the defence does not dispute their authorization or competence search and seizure. 11. In that view of the mater, I am constrained to hold that the appellant possessed the contraband drugs, namely, brown sugar, which is greater than the small quantity, but lesser than the commercial quantity. As such, he has been rightly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years with imposition of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 12. In the meantime, the appellant had suffered the sentence and has been released from the custody on 22.06.2013. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. LCR be sent back immediately.