JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The appellant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ''Act'') and aggrieved thereby the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3. 8. 2014 HC Lokinder Singh, PW-11 along with HC Anil Kumar, PW-1, C Vikram Singh, PW-7 and C. Subhash Bisht were on routine traffic checking and Nakabandi duty towards Jhajar and when they reached at Jhajar Kainchi at about 3. 00 p. m. , vehicle No. HP-23B-3545 (Xenon Tata Pick-up) came from the side of Nithar and was intercepted for routine checking. The appellant was present inside the vehicle being its driver and on inquiry divulged his name as Chander Mohan. HC Lokinder Singh demanded the documents of the vehicle, upon which the appellant got scared and started searching for the documents in the dashboard and below the seat. The appellant could not produce the insurance certificate of the vehicle. HC Lokinder Singh suspected that the appellant may be carrying some contraband and, therefore, sent C. Vikram Singh to search for the public witnesses, who returned after about 20 minutes, but as the place was lonely, no witness could be associated. Thereafter, HC Lokinder Singh constituted a raiding party by associating HC Anil Kumar and C. Vikram Singh. HC Lokinder Singh informed the appellant that he has a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but the appellant gave his option to be searched by the police party. A memo Ext. PW-1/A was prepared which was signed by HC Anil Kumar, C. Vikram Singh and the appellant. HC Lokinder Singh had offered himself to be searched by the appellant as per memo Ext. PW-1/B, but nothing incriminating was recovered from him. The personal search of the appellant was conducted, but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the vehicle of the appellant was searched wherein three packets Ext. PX-1 to Ext. PX-3 wrapped with Khaki tape were recovered from inside the driving seat after removing the head rest. These packets were opened and found to be containing Charas Ext. The personal search of the appellant was conducted, but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the vehicle of the appellant was searched wherein three packets Ext. PX-1 to Ext. PX-3 wrapped with Khaki tape were recovered from inside the driving seat after removing the head rest. These packets were opened and found to be containing Charas Ext. P-2. The Charas was weighed and found to be containing 2 kg. 277 gms. Although, three packets containing Charas were then packed in a cloth parcel, Ext. P-1 and the packet was sealed with six seal impressions ''M''. NCB-1 form, Ext. PW-9/A was filled in triplicate and sample seal was taken on separate pieces of cloth and one such impression is Ext. PW-1/D. Seal impression was put on NCB-1 form. The parcel was seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/C which was signed by witnesses HC Anil Kumar and C. Vikram Singh. The seal impression was put on seizure memo and the seal was handed over to witness HC Anil Kumar. The vehicle alongwith insurance cover was also seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/C. Rukka Ext. PW-7/A was prepared and handed over to C. Vikram Singh with direction to carry it to Police Station, Anni for registration of FIR. C. Vikram Singh handed over rukka to Inspector Rohit Mrigpuri, PW-9, who recorded the FIR Ext. PW-7/B and sent the case file to the spot through the same Constable for the purpose of carrying out further investigation. The site plan Ext. PW-11/A was prepared. The appellant was arrested vide memo Ext. PW-11/B. HC Lokinder Singh brought the appellant and case property and presented the same to Inspector Rohit Mrigpuri, the then SHO, Police Station, Anni, who then re-sealed the parcel by affixing three seal impressions of seal ''O'' and filled the relevant columns of NCB-1 form. The seal impression ''O'' was also put on NCB-1 form and seal impression Ext. PW-9/B was taken on a piece of cloth. Inspector Rohit Mrigpuri handed over the case property alongwith documents to ASI Pushap Dev, PW10. ASI Pushap Dev then made entry in the register of Malkhana at serial No. 377 vide Ext. PW-10/A and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. PW-10 ASI Pushap Dev thereafter handed over the parcel alongwith sample seals ''M'' and ''O'', copy of FIR, NCB-1 form in triplicate and copy of seizure memo vide RC No. 87/14, Ext. ASI Pushap Dev then made entry in the register of Malkhana at serial No. 377 vide Ext. PW-10/A and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. PW-10 ASI Pushap Dev thereafter handed over the parcel alongwith sample seals ''M'' and ''O'', copy of FIR, NCB-1 form in triplicate and copy of seizure memo vide RC No. 87/14, Ext. PW10/B to C Dalip Kumar, PW-3 on 5. 8. 2014 with a direction to carry them to FSL, Junga. C. Dalip Kumar carried all these articles to FSL, Junga and deposited them there in safe condition. Special report, Ext. PW-5/A was prepared and handed over to SDPO, Anni, who in turn, made endorsement thereupon and handed it over to his Reader, LHC Bhuvneshwari. LHC Bhuvneshwari made an entry in the register of the special report and filed the same on record. The result of analysis Ext. PX was issued in which it was shown that the sample was that of Charas and was containing 23. 54% w/w resin in it. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court. 3. The appellant was charged with the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case, whereas the appellant did not lead any evidence. 5. Thereafter, the statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution case in its entirety. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 6. As observed earlier, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid, constraining him to file the instant appeal. 7. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are perverse, inasmuch as it has failed to appreciate that the instant case is one of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and rests completely on the testimony of police witnesses, who obviously are interested to ensure the success of the case and, therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set-aside. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, would support the findings rendered by the learned Court below as being strictly in conformity with law. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, would support the findings rendered by the learned Court below as being strictly in conformity with law. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. Adverting to the first submission of noncompliance of Section 50 of the Act, we feel it is apposite to refer to Section 50 itself, which reads thus: "50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. - (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. 1[(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. ]" 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that the same would apply only to the contingency of search of any person and in the instant case the contraband is allegedly recovered from his vehicle. ]" 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that the same would apply only to the contingency of search of any person and in the instant case the contraband is allegedly recovered from his vehicle. It is no longer res integra that the application of Section 50 of the Act is comprehended and called for only in case of search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. having been authoritatively propounded by the two Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh , 1999 6 SCC 172 , and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat , 2011 1 SCC 609 , and, therefore, any further dilation in this regard, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case is inessential. Therefore, Section 50 has no application to espouse the cause of the defence. 10. Adverting to the other ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding the conviction being based on the testimony of the police officials, even this contention is without merit. It is more than settled that testimony of police officials is to be considered at par with independent public witnesses and in absence of any serious infirmity or inconsistency, has to be believed. The witnesses have no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused, more particularly, when it has come on record that these witnesses were not acquainted with the accused prior to the prosecution case. The conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the police official, provided the same is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other admissible evidence and the same cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It is always dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. 11. It is also settled law that evidence of official witnesses is not to be disbelieved or discarded merely for the reason that they are official witnesses. Presumption is that every witness is impartial and independent unless proved contrary. 12. Adverting to the instant case, we find no reason to doubt the credibility of the official witnesses as their statements are not only reliable and trustworthy but are cogent and consistent with the case of the prosecution. Presumption is that every witness is impartial and independent unless proved contrary. 12. Adverting to the instant case, we find no reason to doubt the credibility of the official witnesses as their statements are not only reliable and trustworthy but are cogent and consistent with the case of the prosecution. Moreover, there is nothing in the cross-examination of the witnesses to show that they were making incorrect statements or they had any motive to depose falsely against the accused. 13. The foundation of the prosecution case mainly rests upon the testimony of PW-1 HC Anil Kumar, PW-7 C. Vikram Singh and PW-11 HC Lokinder Singh, who are the witnesses to the recovery. HC Anil Kumar while appearing as PW-1 stated that he alongwith HC Lokinder Singh, C. Vikram Singh and C. Subhash Bisht of CID was present at Jhajar Kainchi on Nither road in connection with traffic checking and Nakabandi at about 3. 00 p. m. At that time, one vehicle (Xenon Tata Pick up) bearing registration No. HP-24B3545 came from the side of Nither and was signaled to stop. There was only one person in the vehicle and was the one who was driving it. His identity was ascertained. HC Lokinder Singh asked the appellant to show the documents, however, he got scared and started searching for the documents in the dash board and below the seat. He could produce only the insurance certificate of the vehicle. On seeing the act and conduct of the appellant, the police party became suspicious and therefore, HC Lokinder Singh sent C. Vikram Singh in search of independent witnesses towards Nither. After about 20 minutes, C. Vikram Singh returned back without any success and told that he could not find anyone. It was then that HC Lokinder Singh constituted a raiding party by associating him and C. Vikram Singh as witnesses. The Investigating Officer had disclosed to the appellant that he had a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. However, the appellant opted to be searched by the police for which memo Ext. PW-2/A was prepared. The Investigating Officer gave his personal search to the appellant and no contraband was found in his possession. Thereafter, personal search of the appellant was conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. However, the appellant opted to be searched by the police for which memo Ext. PW-2/A was prepared. The Investigating Officer gave his personal search to the appellant and no contraband was found in his possession. Thereafter, personal search of the appellant was conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession. It was during the search of the vehicle that three packets wrapped with Khakhi tape concealed in the driving seat after its head rest had been removed. The packets were opened and found to be containing Charas. The contraband was weighed one by one with the help of electronic scale and the entire weight of the contraband worked out to be 2 kg 277 gms. All the three packets were packed in a cloth parcel and sealed with six impressions of seal ''M''. The sample seal was taken on a piece of cloth Ext. PW-1/D. The parcel was seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/C. NCB-1 form was filled in triplicate. The seal after use was handed over to PW-1, who produced the original seal before the Court and the same was returned back to him. 14. To similar effect are the statements made by C. Vikram Singh, PW-7 and HC Lokinder Singh, PW-11, who in addition proved on record Rukka Ext. PW-7/A, which was sent to Police Station through C. Vikram Singh. Even though, these witnesses were crossexamined, however, nothing material could be elicited therefrom. 15. A faint attempt at this stage is made by learned counsel for the appellant to plead that there are contradictions in the statements of the so called eye witnesses. The appellant has relied upon the contradictions as have been referred to in para 24 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus: (i) PW-1 HC Anil Kumar stated that the vehicle of the accused had come after about 20 minutes when they had reached on the spot. Prior to the vehicle of the accused, they had checked 2-3 vehicles. Whereas, PW-7 C. Vikram Singh has stated that only the vehicle of the accused had been checked as it had reached immediately when the naka was set. According to PW-11 HC Lokinder Singh, the Vehicle of the accused was the very first vehicle which had been stopped for checking by them. After 10-15 minutes of their reaching at the spot, the vehicle had come. According to PW-11 HC Lokinder Singh, the Vehicle of the accused was the very first vehicle which had been stopped for checking by them. After 10-15 minutes of their reaching at the spot, the vehicle had come. (ii) HC Anil Kumar stated that C. Vikram Singh had left with the Rukka from the spot on foot. PW-7 C. Vikram Singh stated that hew had taken a private vehicle at 5 P. M. and the Rukka had been handed over to him at that very time. PW-11 HC Lokinder Singh also stated that the Rukka had been taken by the Constable in a private vehicle. (iii) It was stated by PW-1 HC Anil Kumar that during the period they remained on the spot, number of vehicles had crossed. Whereas, PW-11 HC Lokinder Singh stated that no vehicle had passed in between 3 P. M. to 5 P. M. from the spot. (iv) PW-1 HC Anil Kumar stated that the Investigating Officer was carrying the cloth and the parcel was prepared on the spot which had been stitched with a needle and thread, whereas parcel (Ext. P-1) was machine stitched on two sides. (v) PW-7 Vikram Singh stated that sample seal bears his signatures and that of the accused. PW-11 C. Lokinder Singh also maintained that signatures of the witnesses and that of the accused had been obtained on sample on the spot. Whereas, sample seal Ext. PW-1/D neither bears the signature of the accused nor that of the witnesses. (vi) PW-11 HC Lokinder Singh stated that copy of seizure memo had been given free of costs to the accused, whereas memo (Ext. DX) does not find any mention of the recovery of copy of seizure memo from the personal search of the accused. 16. It is more than settled that undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. A witness cannot be accepted to base a photographic memory and to record the details of an incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is over taken by events. Contradictions and omissions which are not vital or material are bound to be there in every case. 17. A witness cannot be accepted to base a photographic memory and to record the details of an incident verbatim. Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is over taken by events. Contradictions and omissions which are not vital or material are bound to be there in every case. 17. Adverting to the present case, the contradictions as pointed out are not at all significant and do not even shake the prosecution case much less its core. Nowhere has the appellant been able to make a dent on the substratum of the case of the prosecution and impeach the credibility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge has rightly observed that the witnesses were deposing after a gap of two years from the date of the incident and, therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect parrot like version from these witnesses. 18. We see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by learned Special Judge. That apart, the discrepancies are bound to come in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses due to length of time and due to piercy of cross-examination. However, it is only when the so called discrepancies shake the basic version of the prosecution case or the core of the testimony of the witnesses that the same can be used for discarding the prosecution case and not otherwise. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.