JUDGMENT : V.K. SHUKLA, J. In the aforesaid appeals filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a challenge has been made to the common order of conviction and sentence dated 25-3-2010, passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Jabalpur in Special Case No. 5/2008,whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : Criminal Appeal No. 576/2010 Conviction Sentence Under section 8 read with section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 years. Under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/ in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months (Substantive sentence to run concurrently) Criminal Appeal No. 600/2010 Conviction Sentence Under section 8 read with section 20(b)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 years. Criminal Appeal No. 655/2010 Conviction Sentence Under section 8 read with section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 years. Criminal Appeal No. 1906/2010 Conviction Sentence Under Section 8 read with section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 years Criminal Appeal No. 228/2012 Conviction Sentence Under section 8 read with section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.2.00 laksh in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 years 2. According to the prosecution on 29-11-2007 at about 7 a.m. Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur has received information from the Mukhbir that one truck No. CJO4/0120 is coming from Raipur side towards Jabalpur and will go to Damoh side containing incriminating article Ganja and that truck is being escorted by white Gipsy No. MP210436. According to the prosecution on 29-11-2007 at about 7 a.m. Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur has received information from the Mukhbir that one truck No. CJO4/0120 is coming from Raipur side towards Jabalpur and will go to Damoh side containing incriminating article Ganja and that truck is being escorted by white Gipsy No. MP210436. On this information the police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur after making the formalities in accordance with law has gone in front of Hawabagh College, Gorakhpur Jabalpur and has started searching the vehicle there and at that time one Truck No. CJ04/0120 followed by white gipsy were found coming and they were intercepted by police and in the truck three persons coaccused Pradeep Sardar, Jafar Khan and Raj Kumar Yadav were found sitting inside the truck and in the gipsy it is alleged that the person named Dinesh Singh was driving the gipsy and his companion was coaccused Nanna Sahu. 3. During search operation from truck, 826 kg. of ganja and from gipsy 77 kg. and 400 gms. of ganja was seized and from the possession of person named Dinesh Singh, country made pistol and cartridge and in the bag Rs.2.00 lakhs were recovered from the gipsy. During the course of the investigation, 5050 gms. of the incriminating articles were prepared from the articles seized from the truck and the gipsy. The photographs of the proceedings were taken by PW7 Photographer Santosh. During the investigation the seized contraband from the possession of the persons were deposited in the Maalkhana of Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur and the same was sent to the F.S.L. Sagar confirming that the incriminating article is ganja. 4. After investigation, the police has filed the challan. The trial Court has framed the charges under section 8 read with section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance and under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 against the appellants. 5. That in all 12 prosecution witnesses were examined. In defence, the appellants have examined 4 defence witnesses to prove their innocence and false implication in the commission of offence. 5. That in all 12 prosecution witnesses were examined. In defence, the appellants have examined 4 defence witnesses to prove their innocence and false implication in the commission of offence. The defence of the appellant No. 1 Dinesh Singh is that he was the Sarpanch of Madna, Police Station Panagar, Jabalpur, where the S.H.O. of police station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur PW12 D. L. Tiwari was earlier posted and as while raising the grievance of the villagers, complaints were lodged to the higher authorities against PW12 D. L. Tiwari and in order to take vengeance against the appellant soon after his transfer from police station, Panagar, District Jabalpur after 22-11-2007 to Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, the appellant was falsely implicated in the commission of offence. 6. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the entire investigation suffers from mala fide exercise of power by Investigating Officer PW11 H. S. Rawat and PW12 D.L. Tiwari as appellant No. 1 Dinesh Singh was Sarpanch of the village and he had made certain complainants against D. L. Tiwari. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the seizure has not been proved by the prosecution as two independent witnesses namely PW4 Sudhir Chakravarti and PW5 Mahesh Patel have not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that there was discrepancy in sample as it was alleged to have taken 50 grams sample by PW11, H. S. Rawat but the sample which was sent for chemical examination, the quantity was mentioned 100 grams. The next submission is that there was no sample seal (namoona) in the alleged seizure of Arms. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, it contended that the entire prosecution case vitiates because of bias and malicious investigation and prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. It is also contended that the photographer was well known to Investigating Officer H. S. Rawat, which has been admitted by him and therefore, it smacks further unfair and foul investigation. 7. In order to appreciate the submission of the appellant that whether the prosecution suffers from bias of malice, we have to appreciate the testimony of 3 star witnesses of the prosecution namely PW11 H. S. Rawat, PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and PW12 D. L. Tiwari. 7. In order to appreciate the submission of the appellant that whether the prosecution suffers from bias of malice, we have to appreciate the testimony of 3 star witnesses of the prosecution namely PW11 H. S. Rawat, PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and PW12 D. L. Tiwari. PW11 H. S. Rawat, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police Station Gorakhpur stated that at about 7.00 A.M. he received information from mukhbir (Informant) that one Truck No. C.G.04/J0120 is coming from Raipur side towards Jabalpur and will go to Damoh side containing incriminating article ganja and the truck is being escorted by white Gipsy No. MP210436. The information he registered in Rojnamcha Ex.P74 and prepared panchnama in the presence of PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and constable Santosh vide Ex.P69. This statement is supported by PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra, Head Constable. Both the witnesses have stated that they prepared a report in this regard and the intimation was sent to CSP Gorakhpur through constable Ranveer. The same was also recorded in the Rojnamcha Ex.P75 and the report is Ex.P 76. Constable Ranveer had gone to the office of the CSP and got it registered in his inward register. This fact is further corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Khetu Singh who also deposed that carbon copy of the said report was served in the said office vide Ex.P3. Since CSP was not present in his office, the same was got entered into the inward register of the postal section of the office. He also stated that since the said register has not been summoned, therefore, he has not brought before the Court. He stated that the necessary informations of intimation received from Mukhbir etc. are recorded in the Rojnamcha. In para7 of his statement, he further stated that since CSP was not present in the office, he had informed the same through mobile. In para8 of his statement, he has further stated that he had informed him about the report received from Police Station Gorakhpur. Thus, the provisions of section 42(1) and (2) of N.D.P.S. Act has been substantially complied with. In the crossexamination of these witnesses, nothing has been brought in the statement to establish noncompliance of the aforesaid provision. 8. PW11 H. S. Rawat has further stated that he had asked constable Santosh (No. 36) to bring two independent witnesses. His departure is also recorded in Ex.P27. In the crossexamination of these witnesses, nothing has been brought in the statement to establish noncompliance of the aforesaid provision. 8. PW11 H. S. Rawat has further stated that he had asked constable Santosh (No. 36) to bring two independent witnesses. His departure is also recorded in Ex.P27. He brought two independent witnesses namely Sudhir Chakravarti (PW4) and Mahesh Patel (PW5) and also one electronic weighing machine. This is also recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P78. Thereafter the other team members were assembled and their entry is also recorded in Rojnamcha Ex.P80. This has been further supported by witness PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra that all team members assembled and along with all necessary articles and material they proceeded to conduct raid. Both the witnesses have stated that when they reached near Hababag College, they started making search of the vehicles and saw that Truck No. C.G.04/0120 was coming from Sadar side of Katanga road. The said vehicle was being followed by one white colour Gipsy. There were three persons sitting apart from the driver in the truck namely Pradeep Sardar, Jafar Khan and Rajkumar Yadav, who are also accused persons. The Gipsy was being driven by accused Dinesh Singh and the other person was Nanha Sahu. Before conducting the search, he had informed them that if they wish, they can get search done by some gazetted officer or Magistrate but they had given their consent that search may be conducted by the officers of the team. The said fact is also recorded in Panchnama Ex.P6, which was prepared by PW11 H. S. Rawat, Sub Inspector. There is nothing to disown this fact. 9. PW11 H. S. Rawat and PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra further deposed that after taking consent of all the accused persons, personal search was made by the staff of the team and by the witnesses but nothing was found. The search proceedings have been recorded in Ex.P21. Thereafter on the search of Gipsy vehicle, a black colour bag was found in the possession of appellant Dinesh Singh, which was containing Rs.2.00 lakhs in cash and there was a loaded country made pistol in his pocket. Initially on the search of truck, no incriminating article was found but on intensive search by the team, a huge quantity of ganja was found kept in a concealed place which was separately prepared as compartment between the cabin and the body of the truck. Initially on the search of truck, no incriminating article was found but on intensive search by the team, a huge quantity of ganja was found kept in a concealed place which was separately prepared as compartment between the cabin and the body of the truck. Search panchnama of the truck is Ex.P9, which was duly signed by the accused persons. In the truck 108 packets of quantity of 826 kg. ganja was seized and from Gipsy vehicle, 77 kg. ganja was seized. Thus, in total the quantity was 903 kg. He had taken sample of 5050 gm. (2 sample) and the remaining article was seized in the different packets of 1.00 kg and 900 gm. The panchnama is Ex.P13. He also stated that ganja was kept in a gunny bag. The ganja, cash amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs and pistol was seized from Gipsy vide Ex. P16 which was bearing sample ‘C to E’. The same was also got signed by the accused persons. Other seizure of ganja kept in packet of 1.00 kg and 900 gm. was seized vide Ex.P15. The aforesaid seizure proceeding was carried out by PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra. The independent witnesses PW4 Sudhir Chakravarti and PW5 Mahesh Patel were examined by the prosecution in support of the recovery seizure. However, both the independent witnesses turned hostile but PW4 Sudhir Chakravarti admitted his signature, though the seizure memo also bears the signature of PW5 Mahesh Patel but he disowned his signature. 10. In regard to the seizure of arms, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding seal sample could also not be accepted. The seizure of ganja from Gipsy, cash amount and pistol was recorded in the Rojnamcha as well. The same has also been proved. The same has also been proved by the testimony of PW6 Jaswant Manjhar, PW1 Hername Singh and PW3 Mahesh Chand Jatav, who has stated that the seizure of arms was produced before the District Magistrate and thereafter the sanction was obtained vide Ex.P4 which was signed by the then District Magistrate Shri Sanjay Dubey. The independent seizure witnesses have turned hostile but seizure witness PW4 Sudhir Chakravarti has admitted his signature and other prosecution witnesses PW11 H.S. Rawat, PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and P.W12 D. L. Tiwari proved the seizure of articles. The independent seizure witnesses have turned hostile but seizure witness PW4 Sudhir Chakravarti has admitted his signature and other prosecution witnesses PW11 H.S. Rawat, PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and P.W12 D. L. Tiwari proved the seizure of articles. In the case of Modan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435 , the Apex Court held that if evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing , the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. In the present case, the defence could not prove any strong reason to disbelieve the testimony of three police officers. 11. The defence of the counsel for the appellant that he was being falsely implicated because PW12 D. L. Tiwari was earlier posted as Town Inspector and the appellant No. 1 was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the same can also not be accepted. In the crossexamination of PW11 H. S. Rawat and PW12 D. L. Tiwari nothing has been brought on record to show any strong reason for preparation of false case against the appellant. 12. In the facts of the present case where the vehicle having 826 kg. of ganja in truck was being escorted by a vehicle being driven by the appellant Dinesh Singh having huge quantity of ganja of 77 kg. in vehicle with loaded pistol and two lakhs rupees in cash, the defence of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated cannot be accepted. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that there was discrepancy in the mentioning of the quantity in the sample in the seizure memo and packet sent for chemical examination to the FSL. PW11 H. S. Rawat and PW12 D. L. Tiwari have clarified the aforesaid facts in the crossexamination that there was a mistake in mentioning quantity which was later corrected. In fact 50 gm quantity was taken which was kept in a sealed cover packet. Discrepancy as to weight of recovered contravened under section 20 of Act 1985 has been held to be inconsequential in the case of Dalel Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 149 . Thus, the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants would not be fatal and would not vitiate the entire prosecution. 14. Discrepancy as to weight of recovered contravened under section 20 of Act 1985 has been held to be inconsequential in the case of Dalel Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 149 . Thus, the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants would not be fatal and would not vitiate the entire prosecution. 14. Thus, in view of the testimony PW11 H. S. Rawat, PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and PW12 D. L. Tiwari, the search and seizure by the prosecution stands proved. 15. The accused persons were caught at the spot with huge quantity of ganja in truck and Gipsy. Crime was being committed in a well planned and organized manner. In view of the facts and evidence led by the prosecution, the provisions of sections 42, 50 and 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act has been substantially complied with and was not in violation of any mandatory provisions. In the case of Union of India vs. Majorsingh, (2006)9 SCC 170 , the Supreme Court has held that the provision of section 42 shall not apply when search and seizure of public conveyance have taken place in a public place. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawankumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 , the Supreme Court has held specifically that in search of a bag/brief case or any such article or container etc. which is being carried by accused, is not a search of the person, hence section 50 would not apply in such a case. 16. On consideration of the statements of three witnesses, PW11 H. S. Rawat, PW9 Yadu Vansh Mishra and PW12 D. L. Tiwari, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has established its case beyond any doubt and appellants have failed to point out any violation of the statutory provisions of sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 17. In view of the aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence we do not find any error in the order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly all the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.