JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/original accused No.1 is convicted under Section 8(c) read with 20 (b) (ii)(c) and Section 29 read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“ in short “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/on each count and in default of payment of fine to further under go simple imprisonment of one year on each default, by the learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act) Mumbai in Special Case No.78 of 2010 by its Judgment and Order dated 23/2/2012. 2. Heard Shri. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. V.S. Mhaispurkar, learned APP. for the State. Perused the record. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, API Kedari Pawar (P.W.2) on 10.12.2009 when was present in the Anti Narcotic Cell Unit situated within the precincts of Azad Maidan Police Station at about 8.15 hours received specific information from reliable informer that, the original accused No.2, Parshuram G. Bodke @ Raju was to carry a contraband namely 'Charas' which he had procured from two persons namely Sultan and Gulam Nabi, residents of Jammu and Kashmir and was to arrive at about 13.00 to 13.30 hours (1.00 to 1.30 p.m.) near Bislary Compound situated at Western Express Highway Gate, Andheri (W), Mumbai from an Indigo Car bearing No. MH16R4609 for selling it to the appellant. The informant had given specific description of the appellant and the coaccused. P.W. No.2 Keadri Pawar reduced the said information in writing in the Information Register and also in the Station Diary and thereafter he conveyed the said information telephonically to his superior officers. 4. On the basis of the said information received by Mr. Kedari Pawar (P.W.2), under the directions of the superior officers a team under the supervision of Police Inspector Shri. Jadhav(P.W.5) was formed to conduct the raid. After completing the formalities of pretrap panchanama and the collection of field testing kit, a trap was laid near the said Bisleri compound situated on the Eastern Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai. That, at about 13.20 hours (1.20p.m.) one Indigo car bearing aforestated registration number halted near the gate of Bisleri company and after a period of five minutes one rickshaw also came at the said spot. The appellant alighted from the said rickshaw. That, at about 13.20 hours (1.20p.m.) one Indigo car bearing aforestated registration number halted near the gate of Bisleri company and after a period of five minutes one rickshaw also came at the said spot. The appellant alighted from the said rickshaw. That the driver of the said car i.e. accused No.2 Raju thereafter handed over one brown colored shoulder bag to the appellant. The members of the raiding party thereafter accosted the accused persons and made enquiry with both of them. That after giving appraisal as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act orally as well as in writing the accused persons were searched. During the search, the Investigating Agency found 25 Kgs. of Charas in the shoulder bag of the appellant and 5 Kgs. of Charas concealed in a specially designed cavity of the said car driven by accused No.2 Raju. The Investigating Agency thereafter collected samples from the said contraband and a panchanama to that effect was drawn at the spot. The Investigating Officer tested the sample on the spot with the testing kit, which revealed the presence of charas/hashish in the said sample. The accused persons were thereafter arrested. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which after examining it, confirmed that the contraband was 'Charas'. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet before the Special Court at Mumbai. 5. The Trial Court framed charge below Exh.7. The said charge was read over and explained to the appellant and the accused No.2, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant and the coaccused was of total denial and false implication. The record discloses that after framing of charge on 18.6.2011 and before recording of testimony of P.W.1 the original accused No.2 Parshuram Bodke @ Raju expired and therefore, the case as against him stood abated. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all seven witnesses. The Trial Court after recording evidence and after hearing the parties to the present case was pleased to convict the appellant as stated herein above by the impugned Judgment and Order. 7. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, there is total non compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act by the Investigating agency which is impermissible under the law and therefore, benefit of the same be given to the appellant. 7. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, there is total non compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act by the Investigating agency which is impermissible under the law and therefore, benefit of the same be given to the appellant. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 . He further submitted that the evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution would clearly reveal that, the alleged appraisal given by the Investigating Officer to the accused persons was a joint appraisal and therefore, the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is violated by the Investigating Agency and therefore the appellant is entitled for acquittal. In support of his contention he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court namely i) Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 1 SCC (Cri.) 497 : (2011) I SCC 609 and ii) State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and anr. reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri.) 1475 (S.C.). He therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted from the charges framed against him. 8. Per contra the learned APP. vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that the Investigating agency has complied with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act in its proper perspective with all its necessary formalities. She further submitted that the prosecution has also complied with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. She submitted that, apart from the oral appraisal given to the accused persons the prosecution had also given them individual appraisal in writing on which the appellant and coaccused Raju, in writing recorded their denial to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. She submitted that, the said appraisals in writing given by the Investigating Officer is on record at Exhibit Nos. 41 and 42. She further submitted that the contention of the appellant that, there was tampering with the samples while sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory has no substance in it, as there is no evidence on record for the same. She therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be maintained. 9. She therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be maintained. 9. Though the prosecution has examined seven witnesses in support of its case, the evidence of P.W.2 Shri. Kedari Pawar, informant and member of raiding party; P.W.4Rajdeep Parekh, Panch witness; P.W.5 Bhanudas Jadhav, Police Inspector and incharge of the raid and P.W.6 Mohan Mane, Assistant Police Inspector and Investigating Officer, is relevant for decision of the present appeal. 10. The P.W.No.2 Kedari Pawar in his testimony has stated that he has noted down the said information received by him and entered the same into the Station Diary of Azad Maidan Unit. He has categorically stated that, he also told the said information to Senior Police Inspector, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police on telephone and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner of Police directed him to conduct a raid under the supervision of Police Inspector Shri. Jadhav (P.W.5) The Station Diary Entry (Exh.25) has been produced on record and it is duly proved. The record further indicates that P.W.No.2 Kedari Pawar has jotted down the said information in writing. The said note is at Exh.22. In his cross examination he has admitted that, he has not sent the copy of the said information register to his superior officers. The Police Inspector Shri. Bhanudas Jadhav (P.W.5) in his testimony has stated that, he did not receive the copy of the said information from P.W.No.2 Kedari Pawar. P.W. No.6 API Shri. Mane has not denied the fact that, he did not receive the information and in cross examination has only admitted that he did not make enquiry with Mr. Pawar (P.W.2) and Mr. Jadhav (P.W.5) about sending /receipt of the said information to him. After perusing the evidence of the said three witnesses it appears that there is not only sufficient but substantial compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act by the investigating agency. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 has held that non compliance of Section 42 may not vitiate the trial if it does not cause any prejudice to the accused. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 has held that non compliance of Section 42 may not vitiate the trial if it does not cause any prejudice to the accused. It is held that, while total non compliance with requirements of Sections 42(1) and (2) is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. That, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then there will be clear violation of Section 42. As noted earlier, in the present case, in my view, there is substantial compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and it does not cause any prejudice to the appellant in that behalf. According to me Section 42(2) though has not complied with in strict sense the evidence on record indicates that, there is substantial compliance of the same and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the appellant. 11. As far as compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have admitted the fact that there was a joint appraisal given to the accused persons under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and therefore, the said appraisal is not within the conformity of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri.) 1475(S.C.). 12. There is another facet to the present case that, the accused persons were also appraised about their right to be searched under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in writing by the Investigating agency. The said appraisal letters are at Exhibits 41 and 42 on record. The said letters/appraisals were given to the accused persons in Hindi i.e. in the language they were familiar with. The said appraisals in writing are within the conformity of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the said appraisals were in fact in Hindi language however, P.W. Nos. 5 and 6 in their testimony have stated that the said letters were issued in Marathi. The said appraisals in writing are within the conformity of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the said appraisals were in fact in Hindi language however, P.W. Nos. 5 and 6 in their testimony have stated that the said letters were issued in Marathi. According to me the said discrepancy in their deposition is a minor infirmity and does not go to the root of the matter thereby giving benefit of the same to the appellant resulting into total non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The variance in the testimony of P.W.5 Mr. Jadhav and P.W.6 Mr.Mane to the extent of their stating that the letters of appraisal given to the accused were in Marathi and as a matter of fact they were in Hindi is a minor infirmity in their evidence and therefore benefit of the said infirmity cannot be given to the appellant. 13. In a case like in hand, if there are two sets of appraisals as contemplated under Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act, i.e. oral and in writing and if either of the appraisals are proved to be given in compliance of and in conformity with Section 50 of the Act, then the same can be safely relied upon. In the present case though the oral appraisal given to the appellant was a joint appraisal, the letters of appraisal in writing were individual to the accused persons and the same have been proved to be in compliance of Section 50 of the Act. 14. In view of the above I find no reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act. 15. Appeal is accordingly rejected.