JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Lower Court Records have been received. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing dispensing with preparation of paper books. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant and co-accused Umesh Singh @ Chhottu Kumar Chaudhury and Gorokh Nath Singh, is to the effect that on 13.6.2015 at about 2.05 hours S.I. Bijay Kumar Rai (P.W.1) received source information that one Tata Sumo vehicle carrying ganja was coming from Nishiganj side and going towards Bihar through Hindustan More. He diarized the said information as Ghoksadanga P.S. GDE No.448 dated 13.6.2015 and intimated such fact to his superior, O.C. Ghoksadanga Police Station, S.I., Prasanta Biswas, P.W.9 herein. Upon the direction of P.W.9, S.I. Bijoy Kumar Rai, P.W.1, Constable Ratan Roy, P.W.4, Constable Uttam Roy, P.W.6 and Constable Driver Amit Kr. Roy, P.W.8 left the police Station in Vehicle No.WB-64B-2071 and arrived at Hindustan More around 2.40 a.m. At 2.55 a.m., they found vehicle (Tata Sumo Vista) bearing No.74-AA/5506 coming from Nishiganj side. They intercepted the vehicle and found three persons inside the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by one Umesh Singh @ Chhottu Kumar Chaudhury. On being asked the accused persons including the appellant disclosed their identities. Upon searching the vehicle 17 packets containing substance suspected were found to be ganja. On interrogation the detained accused persons disclosed that the packets contained ganjas and they had purchased it from a village near Nishiganj last night and were carrying it to Bihar. They could not produce any valid document or licence justifying possession of the contraband. This incident was informed to Superior Police Officers, namely, P.W.9, Officer-in-Charge, Ghoksadanga Police Station and P.W.13, C.I., Mathabhanga Police Station. Thereafter, seizure was effected in presence of local witnesses who arrived at the spot at 3.30 a.m. viz., P.W.2, Pankaj Bhawmik, Bijan Ghosh, P.W.3 and P.W.11, Hira Chowdhury and the superior police officers. In their presence the packets were opened and the articles suspected to be ganja were weighed. Total weighment was found to be 168 kgs. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn from each of the 17 packets. The sample packets were sealed and labelled in the presence of the Superior Police Officers and the local witnesses. The accused persons including the appellant were arrested and the seized alamats was produced before the police station. Total weighment was found to be 168 kgs. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn from each of the 17 packets. The sample packets were sealed and labelled in the presence of the Superior Police Officers and the local witnesses. The accused persons including the appellant were arrested and the seized alamats was produced before the police station. On the written complaint of P.W.1, Bijoy Kumar Rai, Ghoksdanga P. S. Case No.171 of 2015 dated 13.6.2015 under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the N. D. P. S. Act was registered against Umesh Singh @ Chottu Kumar Chaudhury, Goroknath Singh and Rajiv Kumar. In conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and two other accused persons. Charge was framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the accused persons including the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. The accused person including the appellant examined themselves as defence witnesses. D.W.1 (Umesh Singh) deposed that he had a quarrel with the local police authorities near a petrol pump at Hindusthan More and the police authorities took him to the police station and falsely implicated him in the instant case. Similarly, Gorokh Nath Singh and the appellant deposed they had gone to 'Kamakhya Temple' and had been falsely implicated. After considering the evidence on record, the trial judge by impugned judgment and order dated 18.4.2017 and 20.4.2017 convicted the appellant and the other accused persons under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default to pay the fine amount, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Although no appeal has been filed by Umesh Singh @ Chottu Kumar Chaudhury or Gorokh Nath Singh, the appellant has assailed the aforesaid judgment and order in the present appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the mandatory requirements under NDPS Act for conducting a valid search have not been followed in the instant case. Interception of the accused persons with the consignment of ganja was not made in the presence of gazetted police officers who arrived at the place of occurrence after the accused persons have been apprehended. Interception of the accused persons with the consignment of ganja was not made in the presence of gazetted police officers who arrived at the place of occurrence after the accused persons have been apprehended. Hence, there is no compliance of the mandatory requirements of the provision of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. It is also submitted that the provision of Section 42(2) of the N. D. P. S. Act have not been complied with in the instant case. Independent witnesses viz., P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.11 did not support the prosecution case and the same is solely placed on the version of official witnesses. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on the evidence of the official witnesses. He relied on Jagdish Vs. State of M. P., (2003) 9 SCC 159 , in support of such contention. It has also been argued that the Constable, P.W.4 was unable to identify the appellant as one of the person who was inside the vehicle carrying contraband articles. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the official witnesses are corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. Prior information was duly diarised by A.S.I., Gobinda Das, P.W.7 being G. D. Entry No.448 dated 13.6.2015. It was communicated to the Superior officer, P.W.9 and upon his direction raid was conducted. P.W.1 along with the members of the raiding party have identified the appellant and other accused persons and also proved the seizure of 168 kgs. in 17 packets from their possession. Chemical Examiner's report has established that the seized consignment contained ganja. Independent witnesses have admitted their signatures on the seizure list as well as the fact that there was seizure of articles at the place of occurrence. They resiled from their previous statements to I.O. and have been extensively cross-examined. 5. In the light of the aforesaid fact, no credence ought to be given to their prevaricating stance and the conviction may be based on the version of the official witnesses. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions made across the bar, it is necessary to give a brief synopsis of the evidence led on behalf of the parties. 7. P.W.1, Bijoy Kumar Rai is the informant in the instant case. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions made across the bar, it is necessary to give a brief synopsis of the evidence led on behalf of the parties. 7. P.W.1, Bijoy Kumar Rai is the informant in the instant case. He deposed that he was posted as S.I. of Police at Ghoskadanga Police Station. On 13.6.2015 at 2.05 a.m. he received information that a Tata sumo (Vista) being No.74-AA/5506 carrying ganja would be coming towards Hindustan More. A.S.I., Gobinda Das, P.W.7 diarised such information as G.D. Entry No.448 dated 13.6.2015. On the instruction of Officer-incharge, he along with Constable Uttam Roy, P.W.6, Constable Ratan Roy, P.W.4 and Constable Driver Amit Kumar Roy, P.W.8 went to Hindustan More in an official vehicle bearing registration No. WB-64B-2071. They reached at the spot at 2.40 a.m. At 2.55 a.m. they found a Tata sumo vehicle bearing No. 74-AA/5506 was coming from Nishiganj. They intercepted the vehicle and found three persons occupying the vehicle. Umesh Singh @ Chottu Kumar Chaudhury was driving the vehicle and the other occupants were one Goroknath Singh and Rajib Kumar, the appellant herein. On searching the vehicle, they found 17 packets suspected to be ganja. On interrogation the suspects also disclosed that the packets contained ganja. They further stated that they had collected the ganja from Nishiganj and were taking it to Bihar. They requested local witnesses viz., Pankaj Bhowmick, Bijoy Ghosh and Hira Chowdhury to join the search. He informed the Officer-in-charge, Ghoskadanga Police Station (P.W.9) and C.I., Mathabhanga Police Station (P.W.13) who came to the spot. After their arrival, C.I. Mathabhanga Police Station disclosed his identity to the apprehended persons and with their permission searched the vehicle. In the presence of Officer-in-charge, Ghoskadanga Police Station and C.I., Mathabhanga Police Station, packets were opened and weighment was done with the help of weight machine brought from the police station. The consignment weighed 168 kgs. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn from each of the 17 packets. 17 packets along with the samples were seized, sealed and labelled by him. An extra number plate bearing No.BR-1AP-2390 was also recovered in the said vehicle. A seizure list was prepared, Ext.2. Signatures of witnesses were obtained on the seizure list. He proved the carbon copy of the labels in respect of 17 packets, Ext.3 collectively. 17 packets along with the samples were seized, sealed and labelled by him. An extra number plate bearing No.BR-1AP-2390 was also recovered in the said vehicle. A seizure list was prepared, Ext.2. Signatures of witnesses were obtained on the seizure list. He proved the carbon copy of the labels in respect of 17 packets, Ext.3 collectively. 34 carbon copy of labels in respect of sample packets along with the original labels and the additional number plate were produced in court and identified. 17 packets as well as samples were also produced and identified. 8. Evidence of PW1 has been corroborated by Uttam Roy, Constable (PW6). He has identified his signatures on the seizure list. 9. Pw8, Amit Kumar Roy, Constable driver has also proved the seizure of 168 kgs. of Ganja from the possession of the appellant and two other accused persons. 10. Pw4, Ratan Roy, a member of the raiding party has also corroborated the seizure of Ganja from the vehicle. He however, could not identify the driver of the vehicle. 11. Evidence of the members of the raiding party have been corroborated by S.I., Prasanta Biswas, Officer-in-charge, Ghoksadanga Police Station (PW9) and Shyamal Chakraborty, Circle Inspector of Police, Mathabhanga Police Station (PW13). They also proved their signatures on the seizure list as well as the labels. 12. Pw5, Kaushik Majumder accompanied the Circle Inspector of Police, Mathabhanga Police Station to the place of occurrence. He deposed with regard to seizure of packets from inside the vehicle wherein 3 to 4 young persons were sitting. 13. Pw10, Nirmal Barman is the constable driver who drove S.I. Prasnata Biswas (PW9) to the spot. 14. Pw7, ASI Gobinda Das diarised the prior information as G.D. Entry No. 448 dated 13th June, 2015. He deposed that he informed the Officer-in-charge about the information and as per his direction S.I. Bijay Kumar Rai (PW1) left the police station to work out the information. He also proved the General Diary entries namely, G.D. Entry No. 449 dated 13th June, 2015 (Exhibit-7) with regard to the departure of PW1 for the spot and G.D. Entry No. 450 dated 13th June, 2015 (Exhibit-8) with regard to departure of PW9, Prasanta Biswas, Officer-in-charge for the spot. He has also proved the G.D. Entry Nos. 454 and 455 dated 13th June, 2015 (Exhibit-9) which was recorded by the Officer-in-charge of the police station after return from the raid. He has also proved the G.D. Entry Nos. 454 and 455 dated 13th June, 2015 (Exhibit-9) which was recorded by the Officer-in-charge of the police station after return from the raid. PW2 (Pankaj Bhawmick), PW3 (Bijon Ghosh) & PW11 (Hira Chaudhury) are independent witnesses. 15. Pw2 & 3 deposed that they have hotel near Hindustan more. They deposed on the fateful night police officers were checking vehicles and recoveries were made from that spot and they had signed on the papers as disclosed by the police. They were declared hostile and cross-examined. 16. P.W.11 was also declared hostile and cross-examined. 17. Pw12, S.I. Amalesh Sarkar is the Investigating Officer of the case. 18. The accused persons including the appellant examined themselves as defence witnesses. They have deposed that Umesh Singh (co-accused) was driving a heavy truck bearing no. MH-04-6324. When he was apprehended by the police, a fine was imposed on him. Gorak Nath Singh (D.W.2), and the appellant (D.W.3) deposed that they have gone to 'Kamakhya Temple' on Assam and on their way back they were apprehended by the police and falsely implicated in the instant case. 19. From the evidence on record I note that the recovery in the instant case has been effected from a vehicle which was in transit. Such recovery was made pursuant to a raid conducted by PW1 along with PW4 & 6 after receipt of prior information which was diarised by PW7 (Exhibit-1). PW7 deposed that the diarised information was communicated to the superior officer, namely, Officer-in-charge, Ghoksadanga Police Station (PW9) and pursuant to his direction, raid was held. PW9 has also corroborated such fact. 20. In the light of the aforesaid evidence on record I am unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that there was no compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Prior information was duly reduced into writing (Exhibit-1) and was communicated to the superior officer, PW9 as would appear from the deposition of the aforesaid witness. 21. With regard to the plea that the interception and recovery of the seized articles were made prior to the arrival of the Gazetted Officers at the spot, on an analysis of the evidence on record I find that the vehicle was intercepted and 17 packets were found inside the said vehicle by PW1. 21. With regard to the plea that the interception and recovery of the seized articles were made prior to the arrival of the Gazetted Officers at the spot, on an analysis of the evidence on record I find that the vehicle was intercepted and 17 packets were found inside the said vehicle by PW1. As he suspected that the packets contained Ganja and the accused persons inside the vehicle also admitted to such fact, he intimated to his superior officers namely, PW9, Officer-in-charge, Ghoksadanga Police Station and PW13, Circle Inspector of Police, Mathabhanga Police Station, who arrived at the spot and the latter disclosed his identity as Gazetted Officer and in their presence the seized packets were opened, weighed and samples drawn. 22. It is apposite to note that there was no search of the bodies of the accused persons in the facts of the case. Recovery was made from a vehicle. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, I am of the opinion that requirement to make an offer to the accused persons to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer in terms of Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not arise. Hence, I am of the opinion that no breach of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is disclosed in the factual matrix of the case. 23. With regard to the recovery of 168 kgs. of Ganja in 17 packets from a vehicle which was occupied by the appellant and two other accused persons, I find the evidence of PW1, 4 & 6 to be convincing. Their evidence is also corroborated by other witnesses namely, their superior officers PW9 & 13 who arrived at the spot after interception of the vehicle. It has been argued that PW4, a member of the raiding party could not identify the driver of the vehicle. A perusal of the evidence of PW4 would show that he is a natural and truthful witness. He has deposed with regard to the interception of the vehicle and recovery of the narcotic substance there from. He stated that he could not identify the driver of the vehicle due to lapse of time. His deposition, therefore, has a ring of truth and corroborates the recovery of narcotic substance from a vehicle occupied by the appellant and co-accused persons as deposed by the other witnesses. He stated that he could not identify the driver of the vehicle due to lapse of time. His deposition, therefore, has a ring of truth and corroborates the recovery of narcotic substance from a vehicle occupied by the appellant and co-accused persons as deposed by the other witnesses. It has also been argued that the entire case rests on the version of official witnesses. Hence, it would be unsafe to base a conviction on the strength of their evidence which is not supported by the independent witnesses. Ordinarily a search and seizure conducted by a police officer is required to be made in the presence of two or more local witnesses in terms of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidence of the official witnesses particularly PW1 states that effort was made to join in local witnesses namely, PW2, 3 & 11 at the time of search. But these witnesses did not support the prosecution case during trial. PW2 & 3 deposed that there was a raid which was being conducted by the police officers at the place of occurrence and recoveries have been made from a vehicle. They also admitted their signatures in the seizure list. However, they did not identify the accused persons in court and were declared hostile. They were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statements made before the police officers. 24. Evidence of the hostile witnesses are to be taken as a whole in the factual backdrop of a particular case. When the evidence of PW2, 3 & 11 are assessed in that perspective, I note that they admitted with regard to the search and recovery at the place of occurrence. They also admitted their signatures on the documents prepared at the spot. However, they did not identify the appellant in court and were extensively cross-examined with respect to their previous statements made to the police officers. It cannot, therefore, be said that the hostile witnesses had completely denied the prosecution case of search and recovery from the place of occurrence. Furthermore, they do not appear to be truthful witnesses in view of their prevaricating stance. On the other hand, evidence of the members of the raiding party namely, PW1, 4 & 6 are corroborated by the superior police officers namely, PW9 & 13 who came at the spot after the interception of the vehicle as well as documentary evidence. 25. Furthermore, they do not appear to be truthful witnesses in view of their prevaricating stance. On the other hand, evidence of the members of the raiding party namely, PW1, 4 & 6 are corroborated by the superior police officers namely, PW9 & 13 who came at the spot after the interception of the vehicle as well as documentary evidence. 25. In this backdrop, I am of the considered opinion that the version of the official witnesses are credible and ought not to be discarded due to the desperate attempt on the part of PW2, 3 & 11 to resile away from their previous statements made to the Investigating Officer in order to give a reprieve to the accused persons. Defence evidence also does not inspire confidence. 26. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Vs. State of M. P., (2003) 9 SCC 159 . I find that the said authority is factually distinguishable. In the said report only one person was singled out from a crowded bus as an accused and the independent witnesses (who turned hostile) had been summoned after the search. 27. In the instant case, all the accused persons who were inside the vehicle carrying narcotic substance had been implicated and the independent witnesses though hostile had admitted to the fact that there was search and recovery at the spot and had also admitted their signatures on the document i.e. seizure list prepared at the place of occurrence. 28. One of the accused persons namely, Umesh Singh deposed that there was an altercation with a police officer at the place of occurrence while he was driving a heavy vehicle bearing No. MH04-6324. No documentary evidence was adduced with regard to his authentication to drive the vehicle. Defence evidence of the appellant that he was falsely implicated while returning from Kamakhya Temple is not supported by any contemporaneous materials. Such flimsy defence was not raised at the earliest opportunity after being arrested in the case. Hence, I not convinced with the defence plea raised by the appellant. 29. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution evidence with regard to search and recovery of 168 kgs. of Ganja from a vehicle bearing No. WB-74AA-5506 which was occupied by the appellant and accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 30. Hence, I not convinced with the defence plea raised by the appellant. 29. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution evidence with regard to search and recovery of 168 kgs. of Ganja from a vehicle bearing No. WB-74AA-5506 which was occupied by the appellant and accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 30. Finally, it has been argued that there is two days delay in despatch of the FIR to the court. I have considered the evidence on record. I find that the oral evidence of search and seizure were duly documented by preparation of seizure list at the place of occurrence by PW1 and signed by the other witnesses. Even the hostile witnesses namely, PW2 & 3 admitted to signing on the document at the place of occurrence. Hence, delay in despatch of the FIR, in my opinion, does not strike at the root of the prosecution case so as to render it unbelievable. 31. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. 32. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The connected application for suspension of sentence being CRAN 2182 of 2018 is also dismissed. 33. Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34. Copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent down to the Trial Court at once for necessary compliance. 35. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. I agree. - (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)