JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This appeal has been preferred by convict Des Raj (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against judgment dated 23.11.2016, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial Filing No.12/2013 (Computer Regd. No.55/2013), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Des Raj, in case FIR No. 66/2013 dated 23.03.2013, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'), whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Prosecution case is that on 23.03.2013, PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh alongwith PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar and HHG Puran Chand (not examined) after entering their departure vide Rapat No.11 (Ex.PW.4/C) had left the Police Post, City, Chamba, for verification on spot with reference to Rapat Nos.21 and 22 dated 22.03.2013 (Ex.PW.4/A & Ex.PW.4/B) entered in Police Post, City, Chamba, related to a quarrel in Mohal Upper Julakhari in Chamba Town and while returning from the spot, at about 3.15 p.m., near rain shelter at Bharmaur Chowk, they found a person, having a carry bag in his hand, coming towards rain shelter, who, on noticing police party, had left Bharmaur road and diverted himself towards Pathankot road, causing the police party to have suspicion. Whereupon, PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh, had overpowered him with the help of officials accompanying him. The said person, on inquiry, had disclosed his identity. On the spot, PW.1 Manoj Singh, who was Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mehla and PW.2 Pappu, servant in a shop, standing outside the shop of Balwant Singh, were associated in search and seizure procedure and in their presence carry bag of appellant was searched, wherein steel container of capacity of 2 kgs was found. On the spot, PW.1 Manoj Singh, who was Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mehla and PW.2 Pappu, servant in a shop, standing outside the shop of Balwant Singh, were associated in search and seizure procedure and in their presence carry bag of appellant was searched, wherein steel container of capacity of 2 kgs was found. On opening the same, it was found that there was layer of Desi Ghee and some portion of polythene bag, kept whereunder, was visible which was taken out wherein black sticks were found and on smelling and on the basis of experience, these sticks were identified as cannabis and thereafter, the same were weighed in the adjacent shop namely 'Suresh Seth General Store' on electronic weighing machine in presence of appellant and the recovered cannabis was found 650 grams. Thereafter, recovered contraband was again kept in the polythene envelopes and was put in the steel container alongwith Desi Ghee and the steel container was put in the carry bag and was sealed in a cloth by putting seal impression 'X' thereon and taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW.1/B. After filling in NCB form, in triplicate, facsimileing seal impression 'X' thereof and taking sample impression of seal 'X' on separate piece of cloth Ex.PW.1/C, Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A) was prepared by PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh and sent to Police Station, Sadar through PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar alongwith a copy thereof to be deliveed to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba, for information. Seizure memo (Ex.PW.1/B) and sample of seal Ex.PW.1/C were witnessed and signed by PW.1 Manoj Singh, PW.2 Pappu, PW.13 HC Vijay Singh as well as appellant Des Raj. 3. Pw.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar had delivered copy of Rukka in the office of Superintendent of Police, Chamba at 5.15 p.m. and delivered the original Rukka in the Police Station at 5.25 p.m. to PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass, who on the basis of Rukka, had registered FIR (Ex.PW.7/A) and after making endorsement (Ex.PW.7/B) in that respect on the Rukka, sent the case file through PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar to PW.12 I.O./HC Raghuveer Singh, which was handed over to the Investigating Officer at 7.00 p.m. 4. Pw.12 HC Raghuveer Singh had prepared site map (Ex.PW.12/A) on the spot and recorded statements of witnesses and arrested the appellant-accused vide memo Ex.PW.12/D with information to brother of appellant. Pw.12 HC Raghuveer Singh had prepared site map (Ex.PW.12/A) on the spot and recorded statements of witnesses and arrested the appellant-accused vide memo Ex.PW.12/D with information to brother of appellant. Articles recovered from personal search, after the arrest of appellant, were taken into possession vide memo of Jama Talaashi Ex.PW.12/E. After recording statement of PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar on the spot, on his arrival there, police party headed by PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh had gone to the Zonal Hospital, Chamba, for medical examination of the appellant and thereafter, they reached Police Station, Sadar, Chamba at about 7.45 p.m. and handed over case property to ASI/SHO PW.7 Bishamber Dass alongwith its documents, after recording the said delivery in Daily Diary Report No.51-A dated 23.03.2013 (Ex.PW.11/C). 5. Pw.7 SI Bishamber Dass, after receiving case property alongwith appellant had resealed the parcel of the contraband with seal impression 'T' and had filled in relevant columns in NCB form (Ex.PW.7/C) and after resealing, sample of seal impression 'T' was also drawn on a piece of cloth (Ex.PW.5/A). GDR Report No.52-A dated 23.03.2013 at 8.30 p.m. was recorded and resealing memo (Ex.PW.5/B) was prepared in presence of PW.5 Constable Vikram Singh. Thereafter, PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass had deposited the case property alongwith documents in Malkhana by handing over the same to PW.11 MHC Neeraj Kumar who sent the contraband alongwith documents to State FSL for chemical analysis through PW.10 HHC Ramesh Kumar. 6. After receiving report (Ex.PY) from Chemical Analyst of the contraband from State FSL, wherein it was confirmed that contraband recovered from the appellant is cannabis and sample of charas, on completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 7. On the basis of material on record, learned Special Judge has charged appellant under Section 20 of NDPS Act for having been found in exclusive and conscious possession of 650 grams of charas (cannabis) without any licence or permit. On claiming not guilty, appellant was subjected to trial, wherein prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses to substantiate its case, whereas, after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no evidence has been led in defence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are major discrepancies and contradictions with respect to relevant timings in the statements of witnesses, which are material in nature and creating doubt about recovery of contraband from appellant as claimed by the prosecution. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are major discrepancies and contradictions with respect to relevant timings in the statements of witnesses, which are material in nature and creating doubt about recovery of contraband from appellant as claimed by the prosecution. He has contended that PW.13 HC Vijay Singh has stated that Rukka was sent at about 4.30 p.m., whereas, in Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A), PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh had mentioned time of its preparation at 5.00 p.m. and according to PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar, he had delivered Rukka in the office of Superintendent of Police, Chamba, at 5.15 p.m., whereas, he had reached Police Station at 5.25 p.m. and that in the FIR (Ex.PW.7/A), time of occurrence has been mentioned from 3.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., whereas, in NCB form (Ex.PW.7/C), time of recovery of contraband has been mentioned as 3.45 p.m. Further that according to PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, police party had left Bharmaur Chowk at about 6.15 p.m., whereas, it is claim of PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar that he had reached on the spot alongwith case file at 7.00-8.00 p.m. and according to PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh, police party remained on the spot from 3.15 p.m to 7.20 p.m. It is also contended that according to PW.4 Constable Bhagat Ram, police party, came back in Police Post City, Chamba at 9.30 p.m., whereas, according to PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass, he had received the parcel at 7.45 p.m. and had deposited it with PW.11 MHC Neeraj Kumar at 8.30 p.m. and it has not been explained that when police party came back at 9.30 p.m. and how and in what manner the case property was handed over to PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass at 7.45 p.m. and deposited in the Malkhana at 8.30 p.m. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that from personal search memo (Ex.PW.12/E), it is evident that search of the appellant was conducted in this case, but without complying provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and referring State of H.P. vs. Rakesh,2018 LatestHLJ 214 (HP) and State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand and another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 , he has canvassed that on this sole ground appeal deserves to be allowed as there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is also contended that not only this, but personal search of police party and witnesses was also not given to the appellant before searching appellant as admitted by PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh, in his crossexamination. 10. Another point raised on behalf of the appellant is that offices of Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police, Chamba, are adjacent to the spot, but none of them was called on the spot, which also creates doubt about veracity of the prosecution case. 11. Referring admission of Investigating Officer PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh that on the spot, near the rain shelter, there were Rehri of Tilak Raj and Tea Stall of Puran Chand and they were not associated in the investigation, it is contended that it is fatal for the prosecution as they were natural witnesses of the spot and avoidance of their association during investigation, renders prosecution story doubtful. It is further contended that PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, in his statement, has admitted that Jama Talaashi of appellant was conducted after reaching in Police Station and thereafter memo (Ex.PW.12/E) was prepared, whereas, memo (Ex.PW.12/E) has also been witnessed by PW.1 Manoj Singh, who had not come to the Police Station. It is also pointed out that PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, in his statement, has stated that recovery of contraband was sealed with seal of impression 'S', whereas, claim of the prosecution is that it was sealed with seal of impression 'X'. Further that according to PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, police party did not conduct any traffic checking between Bharmaur Chowk and Julakhari, whereas, according to PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar, they had checked the vehicles on the way. 12. Referring statement of PW.13 HC Vijay Singh that contraband was weighed in the nearby shop namely 'Suresh Seth General Store' on electronic scale, it has also been contended that no one from the said shop has been examined and further that according to PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh, appellant was taken to the hospital for medical examination, whereas, PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar and PW.13 HC Vijay Singh are completely silent in this regard. Again referring statement of PW.13 Vijay Singh, wherein he has stated that except recording statements of witnesses, preparation of spot map, preparation of recovery memo, preparation of arrest memo, no other documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer, it is contended that it indicates that NCB form was not filled in on the spot, which is contrary to the claim of prosecution story and which is another material ground for disbelieving the prosecution case. Lastly, it is contended that independent persons, available on the spot, have not been joined and those, who have been claimed to be associated and examined as PW.1 Manoj Singh and PW.2 Pappu, have not supported prosecution case and have been declared hostile and there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses, therefore, impugned judgment passed by trial Court is liable to be set aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted. 13. To substantiate plea raised on behalf of the appellant, reliance has been placed on Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs. State of Goa, (2005) 9 SCC 773 ; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Achhar Singh,2016 2 HimLR(DB) 816 ; Mohammad Rafik vs. State of H.P.,2014 3 HimLR(DB) 1391 ; Naresh Kumar alias Nitu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2017) 15 SCC 684 ; Khekh Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 202 ; Krishan Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 222 ; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kamaljeet,2016 2 HimLR(DB) 855 ; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Trilok Chand and another, (2018) 2 SCC 342 ; and Union of India vs. Leen Martin and another, (2018) 4 SCC 490 . 14. In response to contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended that independent witnesses available on the spot i.e. PW.1 Manoj Singh and PW.2 Pappu were associated and PW.2 Pappu working in 'Suresh Seth General Store', where contraband was weighed, has been cited and examined as a prosecution witness and both of these witnesses, though have been declared hostile for resiling from their earlier statements, have admitted not only their presence, but also presence of police party and appellant on the spot and fact that proceedings carried on by the police on the spot, has also been proved by them. It is further contended that in cross-examination of PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh recovery of contraband has not been disputed and minor discrepancies and contradictions with respect to timing are not material. Referring pronouncement of the Apex Court in Parmanand's case supra, it is contended that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case, more particularly when no suggestion, about personal search of the appellant at the time of recovery of contraband, has been given to the prosecution witnesses. Lastly, from the sample seal (Ex.PW.1/C) as well as NCB form (Ex.PW.7/C), it is evident that seal of impression 'X' was used by the Investigating Officer and the said fact has also been found mentioned not only in Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A) but also in statements of all relevant witnesses and has also been mentioned in all relevant documents and, therefore, recording of seal impression 'S' instead of 'X' in the statement of PW.13 HC Vijay Singh is irrelevant. Further, referring reasons assigned for conviction of appellant in the impugned judgment, convicting the appellant, the said conviction of appellant has been justified. 15. In rebuttal, reiterating points raised earlier, recent judgment of the Apex Court in Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics Through Inspector L..P. Ojha, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1206 of 2013, decided on 20.08.2019, it is contended that as there is reverse burden of proof, prosecution is to be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions and if at any stage, accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, benefit will naturally have to go to him. There is no quarrel about principle propounded in this judgment, however, whether accused has succeeded to create reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence to rebut the presumption of his guilt is to be assessed on the basis of material on record of present case. 16. It is settled principle that deposition of hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto, but part of that evidence, found to be reliable and credible, on corroboration by other evidence on record, can be taken into consideration in favour of either party. 16. It is settled principle that deposition of hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto, but part of that evidence, found to be reliable and credible, on corroboration by other evidence on record, can be taken into consideration in favour of either party. Further, evidence of official witnesses, is not to be rejected only for absence of any independent witness or for not supporting prosecution case by independent witnesses and in such eventuality, evidence of official witnesses ought to have been scrutinized with greater care and caution and in case evidence of official witnesses is found to be reliable and credit-worthy, then conviction can be based on the evidence of official witnesses only. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out differences/discrepancies with respect to time in the statement of PW.13 Vijay Singh vis-a-vis other witnesses including Investigating Officer PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh. Alleged recovery of contraband is dated 23.03.2013. Statements of witnesses were started to be recorded in the trial Court w.e.f. 18.02.2015 and eleven prosecution witnesses were examined in February 2015 and PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh was examined on 01.04.2015, whereas, PW.13 Constable Vijay Singh was examined on 07.01.2016. Considering long gap between date of recovery and examination of PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, in comparison to other prosecution witnesses, discrepancy with respect to time was bound to occur, but difference in timings of events, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, is not leading the Court to discard the version of prosecution witnesses as the time stated by PW.13 HC Vijay Singh is nearer to time as claimed by the prosecution and deposed by other witnesses in Court. In cross-examination to PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar, PW.5 Constable Vikram Singh, PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass, PW.11 HC Neeraj Kumar and PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh, it has nowhere been suggested that timings of the events claimed by them are incorrect or false. In examination-in-chief and in crossexamination of these witnesses, timings of events, claimed by them are being corroborated by each other. 18. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that police party, as alleged, arrived on the spot at 3.15 p.m., whereas, in the NCB form (Ex.PW.7/C) recovery of contraband has been shown as 3.45 p.m., whereas, Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A) has been prepared at 5.00 p.m., which indicates that a false case has been foisted upon the appellant. 18. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that police party, as alleged, arrived on the spot at 3.15 p.m., whereas, in the NCB form (Ex.PW.7/C) recovery of contraband has been shown as 3.45 p.m., whereas, Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A) has been prepared at 5.00 p.m., which indicates that a false case has been foisted upon the appellant. Prosecution case is that police party arrived on the spot at 3.15 p.m. and it has nowhere claimed that contraband was recovered at 3.15 p.m. In fact, appellant was apprehended; independent witnesses were associated; and then contraband was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW.1/B) after sealing it in a parcel. Time mentioned in NCB form is not of recovery but of seizure. For completing all these formalities, consumption of half an hour, rather appears to be reasonable and in NCB form (Ex.PW.7/C) time of seizure mentioned as 3.45 p.m. is genuine time. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded on the spot. Spot map (Ex.PW.12/A) was prepared and the appellant was arrested whereupon his Jama Talaashi was taken and arrest memo as well as memo of Jama Talaashi were prepared and for doing all these activities, time taken on the spot by Investigating Officer up till 7.00 p.m., also appears to be reasonable. Departure of PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar from the spot at 5.00 p.m. alongwith Rukka, delivering a copy thereof by him to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba at 5.15 p.m. and his arrival in the Police Station at 5.25 p.m. and departure thereafter at about 6.15 p.m. and arrival on the spot at 7.00 p.m., has not been disputed at any point of time. It is prosecution case that police party had gone to the Police Station first via Government Hospital, after medical checkup of appellant and thereafter had returned to Police Post, City (Chamba) at 9.30 p.m. Therefore, claim of the prosecution that police party had reached in Police Station at 7.45 p.m. and had returned to Police Post City at 9.30 p.m. is not contradictory, as PW.4 Constable Bhagat Ram has deposed about the return of police party at 9.30 p.m. in Police Post City, but not in the Police Station. PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass, PW.5 Constable Vikram Singh and PW.11 HC Neeraj Kumar, have corroborated the timing of arrival of police party in Police Station as stated by PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh. PW.7 SI Bishamber Dass, PW.5 Constable Vikram Singh and PW.11 HC Neeraj Kumar, have corroborated the timing of arrival of police party in Police Station as stated by PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh. Therefore, there is no material contradiction or discrepancy with respect to timings of events deposed in evidence of official witnesses. 19. Pw.1 Manoj Singh, who is an independent witness, has accepted his arrival at Bharmaur Chowk when police party was there alongwith a person and charas. Though initially he has stated that charas was not recovered in his presence and in crossexamination he has admitted recording of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but has denied his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reduced into writing in portion B to B of his statement (Ex.PW.1/A) and has denied that he had stated that after alighting from the bus at Bharmaur Chowk at 3.15 p.m. when he was standing on the side of road to cross it, he and Roshan Lal were called by PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh and a person carrying a bag was apprehended by the police, who, on inquiry, had disclosed his name Des Raj son of Heera alongwith his address and age and Roshan Lal and Vijay Singh had witnessed that on opening of the carry bag, a steel container of capacity of 2 kgs, was found therein and on opening the cover of container, a layer of Desi Ghee, was found therein, but a portion of polythene bag in the Ghee was clearly visible and on taking out the polythene bag from the Ghee, another polythene bag was found therein, from which solid black coloured sticks were recovered. However he has admitted portion of A to A and C to C of his statement, wherein it is stated that on the day of incident, he was going to ICICI Bank for his personal work and further that solid and black coloured substance was found to be cannabis/charas, which was weighed on electronic weighing machine by the police in the adjacent shop of Suresh Seth in presence of appellant Des Raj with the help of PW.2 Pappu, a servant of Suresh Seth and it was found to be 650 grams and thereafter police had sealed and seized it alongwith Ghee and steel container in the same bag by affixing six seals of impression 'X' on the parcel and thereafter NCB form in triplicate was filled in and sample of seal 'X' was facsimiled thereon and specimen of seal 'X' was also taken on separate piece of cloth and memos were signed by him, Roshan and Vijay as witnesses and appellant Des Raj had also signed thereon, and copy thereof was handed over to Des Raj. 20. It is evident from the deposition of PW.1 Manoj Singh that he had tried to help the accused by resiling from his statement, but by admitting portion A to A and C to C of his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he has substantiated the prosecution case. Therefore, despite being declared hostile, his deposition is corroborating prosecution case and his claim in examination-in-chief that, he was going on his motorcycle to Mehla in the morning time, then he had seen police officials and a person were found sitting near Barmour Chowk, becomes immaterial with respect to timings stated in his deposition. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted his statement (Ex.PW.1/A) was recorded by police on spot. 21. Pw.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar has stated that vehicles were checked, whereas, PW.11 HC Neeraj Kumar and PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh have stated that no vehicles were checked on the way. In view of other overwhelming evidence on record substantiating prosecution case, this contradiction is not materially affecting prosecution case. 22. It is true that in deposition of PW.13 HC Vijay Singh in Court, it has been recorded that contraband was seized and sealed with seal 'S'. In view of other overwhelming evidence on record substantiating prosecution case, this contradiction is not materially affecting prosecution case. 22. It is true that in deposition of PW.13 HC Vijay Singh in Court, it has been recorded that contraband was seized and sealed with seal 'S'. All other witnesses have deposed that contraband was sealed with seal of impression 'X' and nowhere in their crossexamination, it has been disputed that there was no seal of impression 'X' but 'S'. Contraband was also produced in the Court. At that time also seal impression 'X' was found on the parcel containing it and in sample seal (Ex.PW.1/C) also, impression of seal is 'X'. Therefore, mention of seal 'S' in deposition of PW.13 Vijay Singh is immaterial. Also for the reason that this witness was examined after one year of examination of other witnesses and there is little resemblance in pronunciation of 'X' and 'S' and no dispute about seal impression 'S' at the time of recording evidence of other witnesses and about production of the seal containing contraband has been raised, this discrepancy is also immaterial. 23. Contention of the appellant that no one has been examined from the shop of Suresh, where contraband was weighed, is also incorrect. PW.2 Pappu is a person, who was working with Suresh General Store at relevant point of time, though he has stated that he did not remember the date, but he has deposed that in the year 2013 police had brought a container in his shop for weighing, whereupon, he weighed the cannabis from the container and after weighing it was found to be 650 grams. 24. In examination-in-chief PW.2 Pappu he has denied that accused was also brought in his shop, but in cross-examination, he has admitted that his statement (Ex.PW.2/A) was recorded by the police on spot. He has admitted the suggestion that portion thereof from A to A and C to C is correct, wherein it is recorded that on 23.03.2013, at about 3.20 p.m. he was present in the shop/Store and on asking of the police, he had weighed the stick shaped cannabis/charas on electronic weighing machine in presence of Des Raj, which was found to be 650 grams and after weighing it, such charas was handed over by him to the police. He has not been further cross-examined on behalf of the appellant despite granting opportunity. He has not been further cross-examined on behalf of the appellant despite granting opportunity. Therefore, his statement also corroborates prosecution case despite the fact that he had been declared hostile. 25. Discrepancy pointed out on behalf of the appellant that PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar and PW.13 HC Vijay Singh have not stated anything about the visit of police party to the hospital for medical checkup of appellant in contrast to the claim of PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh and also admission of PW.13 Vijay Singh that except recording of statement of the witnesses, preparation of spot map, preparation of recovery memo and preparation of arrest memo, no other documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer, indicates that NCB form was not filled in on the spot, are also not material as PW.12 HC Raghuveer Singh has categorically stated about the visit to the hospital and also preparation of documents on the spot, which has been reiterated by him in cross- examination and also for the reason that in his cross-examination, it has been suggested that he has prepared the documents of his own, but it is nowhere suggested that he had not prepared the documents including filling in NCB form on the spot. His deposition about taking the accused to the hospital for medical checkup, has not been disputed in his cross-examination. Facts stated in examination-in-chief, not disputed in cross-examination, are to be considered as admitted. Therefore, aforesaid discrepancies are also immaterial. 26. No doubt that PW.3 Constable Kuldeep Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, is completely silent about time, purpose and the departure of the police party from the Police Post and noticing and apprehending the appellant at Bharmaur Chowk, but he has started his statement by saying that on 23.03.2013 he was present at Bharmaur Chowk alongwith other police officials and at about 5.00 p.m. Investigating Officer handed over him a Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A), which was delivered by him to the Superintendent of Police as well as Police Station, Chamba and thereafter, he had handed over the file to the Investigating Officer on the spot at 7.05 p.m. His such statement might have created doubt about veracity of the statement of other police officials as in examination-in-chief, he is silent about prosecution story as claimed in the prosecution case. But in his cross-examination, in response to the question put to him, he has narrated entire prosecution story in corroboration of other official witnesses including timings of events. It indicates that his silence about prosecution story, in his examination-in-chief, was not for the reason that he was not present on the spot, but for his wisdom, he in examination-in-chief, had deposed precisely about major role performed by him. 27. Undoubtedly, on suspicion of having possession of contraband, before conducting personal search, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, but for evidence on record, in present case, personal search of the appellant at the time of recovery of contraband, has not been conducted. Neither in Rukka (Ex.PW.3/A), memo of search or seizure (Ex.PW.1/B) nor in statements of prosecution witnesses, it has been claimed that after apprehending the appellant and either before or after searching the steel container carried by him in his hand, at any point of time, personal search of the appellant was conducted for suspicion of having contraband. Reference of memo (Ex.PW.12/E), to substantiate plea of appellant that his personal search was conducted without compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, is also misconceived, as in this memo of search (Jama Talaashi), it is categorically stated that on that day on 23.03.2013, person of the appellant was searched after arresting him in accordance with law and mobile phone, charger, memo of search and seizure of 650 grams charas and currency notes of Rs.60/- were found during his Jama Talaashi i.e. personal search. Therefore, plea raised on behalf of the appellant in this regard and case law referred on this count are not attracted in present case. 28. Therefore, plea raised on behalf of the appellant in this regard and case law referred on this count are not attracted in present case. 28. Pw.12 HC Raghuveer Singh has stated that after sealing the contraband with seal 'X', the same was handed over to PW.13 HC Vijay Singh, who in his examination-in-chief, has categorically stated that seal after use was handed over to him and he had brought the seal in the Court and in cross-examination, nowhere it has been questioned that seal brought by him in Court is not the same, which was handed over to him and/or with which contraband was sealed at the time of seizure and it is also not the case of the appellant, as no such suggestion has been put to the witnesses, that case property was tampered by PW.13 HC Vijay Singh or any other police official with his help. Therefore, on this count also, no ground for interference is made out and the judgments cited on this issue are also not relevant, wherein nonproduction of seal was considered by the Court fatal to the prosecution case. Otherwise also, non-production of seal may not be fatal in every case and its impact is to be considered in the given facts and circumstances of each and every case and where no prejudice is proved to have been caused for non-production of seal in the Court and there is sufficient evidence on record other than original seal for comparison of seal affixed on the case property, so as to link contraband recovered on the spot with case property produced in the Court, it may not be fatal particularly when there is nothing on record to suggest that non-production of seal(s) has caused prejudice to the appellant. For availability of other sufficient evidence, non-production of original seal, being a technical defect, does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is caused. 29. Purpose of production of original seal in the Court is to compare it with seal affixed on parcels of contraband and sample in the Court so as to prove that the parcels produced in the Court are the same which were prepared and sealed on the spot at the time of recovery from the accused and also to ensure that parcel sent for chemical examination and received back were the same which were seized and sealed on the spot. For that purpose, in present case, Investigating Officer had taken the sample of the seal on separate piece of cloth and had obtained signatures of independent witnesses on sample seal and the documents. The Apex Court, referring Jankinath Sarangi vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 3 SCC 392 ; State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal, (1998) 6 SCC 651 ; State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thakkidiram Reddy, (1998) 6 SCC 554 ; and Debotosh Pal Choudhury vs. Punjab National Bank, (2002) 8 SCC 68 in case State versus N.S. Gnaneswaran, (2013) 3 SCC 594 , propounding the doctrine of prejudice, has held that issue also requires to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice and unless in a given situation, the aggrieved makes out a case of prejudice or injustice, some infraction of law would not vitiate the order/enquiry result and in judging a question of prejudice, the court must act with a broad vision and lock to the substance and not to technicalities. 30. Failure to give personal search by the police party/ raiding party to the accused, in given facts and circumstances, may be fatal for prosecution, but in present case, for evidence on record with respect to commission of offence by the appellant, as discussed supra, such failure, in present case, is not fatal to the prosecution. 31. I have gone through case law referred in order to substantiate plea raised on behalf of the appellant. For facts and evidence on record in present case, ratio of these pronouncements is not applicable in present case. Therefore, while agreeing with the principles of law propounded therein, I do not find them of any help to the appellant. 32. As discussed supra, after considering arguments of respective learned counsel for the parties and minutely examining testimonies of witnesses and other documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out. Hence, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith.