JUDGMENT : LOK PAL SINGH, J. 1. Present criminal jail appeal has been received by this Court through Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar, sent by the convict-appellant Devendra Sharma, who was convicted by the court below under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to further undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment. 2. Criminal law was set into motion at the instance of S.I. Dinesh Kumar, P.S. Dharasu, District Uttarkashi, who lodged a FIR against Devendra Sharma (present appellant) and Dungar Singh Mahra alias Rohit, for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, alleging therein, that illegal charas measuring two kilogram was recovered from the possession of the accused. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 16.12.2013, complainant S.I. Dinesh Kumar, P.S. Dharasu along with other police personnel were deputed for vehicle checking at Nagun Forest Barrier. At about 07:30 A.M., two persons were spotted riding a black colour motorcycle, bearing no. UK 08 N / 5864. When the accused were asked to stop, they tried to escape, but were apprehended by the police personnel. The activities of the accused were found suspicious. On being enquired, both the accused told the complainant that they are in possession of charas, brought from Uttarkashi meant to be sold in Haridwar. When the police party asked for license to keep the contraband, accused persons could not produce the same. Both of them were offered to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, being their legal right. Both of them volunteered that the police party may search them. After obtaining their consent, personal search was taken. On being asked, the accused driving the motorcycle disclosed his name as Devendra Sharma (appellant herein) and other accused, who was pillion rider, disclosed his name as Dungar Singh Mahra alias Rohit. Chitranand Nautiyal and Rukum Singh, both forest employees, were called as witnesses. In the presence of witnesses, on personal search of both the accused by the police party, two kilograms charas was recovered from the black bag found in possession of accused Dungar Singh Mahra alias Rohit. On completing all the legal formalities, recovery memo was prepared and the accused, including present appellant, were taken into custody. In the presence of witnesses, on personal search of both the accused by the police party, two kilograms charas was recovered from the black bag found in possession of accused Dungar Singh Mahra alias Rohit. On completing all the legal formalities, recovery memo was prepared and the accused, including present appellant, were taken into custody. Chik FIR was lodged on the basis of recovery memo. 4. After the FIR was lodged, investigation of the case was conducted. Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 8 / 20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act). 5. Learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, on receipt of the charge sheet, registered the same. After giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., learned Special Judge, Uttarkashi, on 12.05.2014, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Ajay Chandel; PW2 Rukum Singh; PW3 Tika Ram Bhatt, PW4 Constable Meharban Singh, PW5 H.C. Raghuvir Singh, PW6 S.I. Dinesh Kumar (complainant); PW7 H.C. Dilwar Singh Kandari; PW8 Constable Kuldeep Chauhan and PW9 S.I. Ajay Singh. The evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which he alleged to be false. An opportunity was given to the accused to lead evidence in defence. However, no evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found Devendra Sharma guilty of the offences punishable under Section 8 / 20 of N.D.P.S. Act, and sentenced him accordingly, as mentioned above. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that 100 gm. sample was taken out from the recovered contraband and the same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttarakhand, Dehradun for examination. Forensic Science Laboratory, vide letter dated 10.03.2014, reported that the sample sent to them by the Court, contained charas. The same was counter signed by the Asstt. Director of F.S.L. and, therefore, is admissible in evidence. 7. PW1, who was then posted as constable in P.S. Dharasu, supported the prosecution story. The Court need not deliberate on his examination-in-chief for the same has already been indicated by this Court in paragraph no. 3 of this judgment. 8. PW2, a public witness, also supported the prosecution story. Director of F.S.L. and, therefore, is admissible in evidence. 7. PW1, who was then posted as constable in P.S. Dharasu, supported the prosecution story. The Court need not deliberate on his examination-in-chief for the same has already been indicated by this Court in paragraph no. 3 of this judgment. 8. PW2, a public witness, also supported the prosecution story. This witness put his signatures on the consent letter given by the accused regarding personal search to be made by the police. PW2 also put his signatures on recovery memo and arresting memo. PW2 corroborated the statement given by PW1. PW3 was the shopkeeper from whom weighing scale was procured. He is an independent witness. PW3 stated that he handed over the weighing scale to Constable Ajay Chandel along with weights of 2 kg, 1 kg., 500 gm. and 100 gm. respectively. PW4 was then posted as a constable in P.S. Dharasu, who went to deposit the recovered contraband in the F.S.L., Dehradun, and received receipt of the same from there. PW5, prepared Chik FIR on the basis of recovery memo. PW6, the complainant and arresting officer, fully supported the prosecution story. PW7, the Investigating Officer, started the investigation of the case. PW8, was then posted as Asstt. Sadar Malkhana Moharir. He received the case property and made the entry of the same in the malkhana register. PW9 is the subsequent Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. He also proved certain other prosecution documents. PW9 was cross-examined on behalf of the defence but nothing material has been found in his cross-examination. Although PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 were cross-examined, but nothing has come out in their examination that they were telling a lie. Since nothing material has been found in the cross-examination of aforesaid prosecution witnesses, therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that they were trustworthy witnesses. The same conclusion can safely be drawn in respect of PW6, PW7, PW8 and PW9 also. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of these prosecution witnesses to suggest the falsity of their evidence. 9. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant referred to the principle of law laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another, 2014 (1) N.C.C. 361 (S.C.), and submitted that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not complied with. 9. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant referred to the principle of law laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another, 2014 (1) N.C.C. 361 (S.C.), and submitted that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not complied with. On the strength of aforesaid judgment, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that merely the bag carried by a person is searched without their being any search of his person and, as such, Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act will have no application. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, it is evident that in the case in hand, bag carried by co-accused Dungar Singh Mahara alias Rohit (non-appellant) was searched. From the bag, charas was recovered. Personal search of both the accused was also carried out. Moreover, the police witnesses have stated that the accused were informed that they have a right to be searched before the nearest gazetted officer or a nearest Magistrate, to which they declined and gave their consent to be searched by the police party. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. will have application in the present case. 10. The Court need not discuss the evidence any further for, suffice will it be to say, that the police witnesses have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant. Learned trial court has appropriately discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses in detail, has also deliberated upon the contents of their cross-examination and has also discussed the case laws cited by the defence counsel, especially alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned trial court did not find favour with such submissions of learned defence counsel. It has also held that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has, therefore, rightly held that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant has accordingly been convicted and sentenced under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 11. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, this Court is unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by the court below. Impugned judgment and order does not require interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. 11. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, this Court is unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by the court below. Impugned judgment and order does not require interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. The Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the convict-appellant serve out the sentence awarded against him. An information to this effect be also sent to the Superintendent, District Jail, Haridwar, where the convict-appellant is currently serving out the sentence.