JUDGMENT : All these appeals have arisen out of same judgment and also entail common questions of facts and law, therefore, these appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The appellants by way of instant appeals have assailed judgment and sentence dated 20.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions (Special) Judge, Kullu in Sessions trial No. 32 of 2015, , whereby, appellants have been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “the Act”) and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. one lakh and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 3. Noticeably, before the learned Special Judge, all the appellants had taken a common defence of general denial and were represented by a common counsel(s). 4. Brief facts, on which the case of the prosecution rested, are as under:- 4.1 On 26.03.2015 at about 9.30 P.M., a police party including H.C. Vinay Kumar (PW-6), HHC Neel Chand, C. Vijay Kumar (PW-5) along with driver H.C. Khub Ram left Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu along with I.O. Kit, search light and electronic scale for laying a Naka at place Seund on Bhuntar-Manikaran road. Naka was accordingly laid. 4.2 At about 3.10 A.M. a vehicle, approaching from Manikaran side, which was stopped by the police party. Vehicle was white coloured ‘Innova’ with DL-IVB-2778 as its registration number. 4.3 Appellant Kimti Lal was the driver and appellants Sandeep Kumar and Om Prakash were occupants of the rear seat of the vehicle. Driver of the vehicle could not produce the documents of the vehicle. 4.4 The Police party noticed red coloured bag concealed on the rear seat between appellants Sandeep Kumar and Om Prakash. H.C. Vinay Kumar (PW6), checked the said bag with the help of search light in the presence of other police officials accompanying him and found rectangular shaped black coloured substance wrapped in polythene packets. 4.5 Independent witnesses could not be associated due to the fact that the place of ‘Naka’ was secluded and also no vehicle crossed the spot at relevant time. Constable Vijay Kumar (PW-5) and HHC Neel Chand were associated as witnesses. 4.6 The substance found in the bag was discovered to be ‘ charas’ on the basis of smell and experience. 4.5 Independent witnesses could not be associated due to the fact that the place of ‘Naka’ was secluded and also no vehicle crossed the spot at relevant time. Constable Vijay Kumar (PW-5) and HHC Neel Chand were associated as witnesses. 4.6 The substance found in the bag was discovered to be ‘ charas’ on the basis of smell and experience. Recovered ‘charas’ was weighed as 2.250 kilograms. The contraband was again placed in the same bag from which it was recovered and the bag containing ‘ charas’ was placed in a cloth parcel and sealed with nine seals having impression “K”. Facsimile of seal impression was preserved on a separate piece of cloth 4.7 Sealed parcel contained recovered contraband along with vehicle, keys, photo copies of its documents, driving licence of the driver and sample seal were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. NCB form, Ex.PW4/A was filled by PW-6 4.8 A brown coloured paper envelope containing driving licence of appellant Kimti Lal and photo copies of registration certificate and insurance cover of the vehicle was also found from the same bag that contained ‘charas’. 4.9 RUKKA, Ex.PW6/A was prepared and sent through C. Vijay Kumar (PW-5) to the police station for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR Ex.PW7/A was registered at 5.40 A.M in the police station. The file was sent back to the spot for further investigation. Appellants were formerly arrested at about 7.30 A.M. on the spot. PW-6 H.C. Vinay Kumar prepared site plan Ex.PW6/B and forwarded the case property along with relevant documents to the SHO/SI Bhag Chand (PW7). 4.10 The contraband was resealed by PW-7 SI Bhag Chand at police station Bhuntar with three seals having impression “U”. The remaining part of NCB form Ex.PW4/A was filled and completed by PW7. The case property along with relevant documents was handed over to MHC Gian Chand (PW-4) for being kept in Malkhana in safe custody. 4.11 Special report under Section 57 of the Act, Ex.PW3/A was prepared and sent to Dy. S.P. Kullu by PW-6 on 27.03.2015, which was received by Dy. S.P. Headquarter Kullu at 3.30 P.M., on the same day vide Ex.PW3/C. 4.12 The contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis on 29.03.2015. After laboratory examination, report Ex.PW4/B was prepared by the Assistant Director, SFSL, Junga. As per this report, the seized contraband was found to be cannabis. S.P. Headquarter Kullu at 3.30 P.M., on the same day vide Ex.PW3/C. 4.12 The contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis on 29.03.2015. After laboratory examination, report Ex.PW4/B was prepared by the Assistant Director, SFSL, Junga. As per this report, the seized contraband was found to be cannabis. The report was sent to the police Station Bhuntar, the relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “10. On opening the sealed cloth parcel, the exhibit stated as cannabis, in the form of rectangular flat chapattis some polywrapped and some in transparent zip poly packets, was found in red colored carry bag. On weighing the exhibit stated as cannabis on electronic balance, the weight was found to be: Total weight of parcel= 2.308 Kg. Weight of polythene wrappers, zip poly packets, carry bag & Parcel cloth= 0.094 kg. Weight of exhibit = 2.214 Kg.” 4.13 On completion of investigation ‘challan’ was presented. 5. The Learned Special Judge charged the appellants under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The learned Special Judge had framed charged in respect of 2.214 kilograms of cannabis on the basis of weight of the contraband as found by SFSL, Junga. 7. Prosecution examined total 9 witnesses. The appellants were also examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They did not choose to lead defence evidence. 8. Learned Special Judge found charges framed against the appellants proved and convicted/sentenced them as noticed above. 9. We have heard Mr. B.L. Soni, learned counsel appellant Kimti Lal, Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel appellant Om Prakash, Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for appellant Sandeep Kumar & Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. 10. We are not oblivious to the legal prescription about the strict examination required on prosecution case, keeping in view the severity of the punishment for offences under the Act. In Hanif Khan alias Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2020)16 SCC 709, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “9. Because there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. In Hanif Khan alias Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2020)16 SCC 709, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “9. Because there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. If at any stage, the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him.” 11. Keeping in view the above stated interdict, we now proceed to assess the prosecution evidence. PW-5, C. Vijay Kumar and PW-6, H.C. Vinay Kumar are the spot witnesses. As far as their examinations-in-chief are concerned, they are in unison in narration of sequence of facts having taken place on spot. It is stated by them that during the intervening night of 26th/27th March, 2015 at about 10.30 P.M “Naka” was laid by police party at Seund on Manikaran-Bhuntar road. The place was secluded. A vehicle, white coloured Innova bearing No. DL-1-VB-2778 approached from Manikaran side and was signaled to stop. Kimti Lal was driver and other two appellants Sandeep Kumar and Om Prakash were the occupants of the vehicle on rear seat. The driver failed to produce the documents of the vehicle. The police party noticed red coloured bag concealed between the sitting passengers on the rear seat. No independent witnesses could be found due to night hours and secluded place. Even, there was no vehicular traffic on the road at that time. PW-5, C. Vijay Kumar and HHC Neel Chand were associated as witnesses and bag found on rear seat, in between the passengers was checked. Black coloured substance in rectangular shapes was found wrapped in polythene packets. The recovered substance was found to be cannabis. It was weighed and found 2.250 kilograms. The recovered contraband was placed in the same red coloured bag which in turn was placed in cloth parcel which was sealed with nine seals bearing impression “K”. Facsimile of sample seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth. A brown-coloured paper envelope containing driving licence of driver Kimti Lal along with photo copies of R/C and insurance of the vehicle were also recovered from the red coloured bag. Facsimile of sample seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth. A brown-coloured paper envelope containing driving licence of driver Kimti Lal along with photo copies of R/C and insurance of the vehicle were also recovered from the red coloured bag. All the recovered articles including the sealed parcel containing recovered contraband, along with vehicle, key, photo copies of its documents, deriving licence of the driver and sample seal were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. “RUKKA”, Ex. PW6/A was prepared and sent to police station for registration of FIR through PW-5. FIR, Ex.PW7/A was registered and the file was sent back to spot for further investigation. The further investigation i.e. preparation of site plan, formal arrest of appellants etc. was completed on spot. 12. PW-6 further deposed that the personal search of the appellants was conducted at Police Station Bhuntar which fact was evidenced by memo Ex. PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H. Case property was handed over to SI/SHO Bhag Singh (PW-7) along with vehicle, NCB form in triplicate, sample seal “K” and other relevant documents. On 27.03.2015 at 3.30 P.M., special report Ex.PW3/A was handed over to Dy. S.P., Kullu. After completion of remaining investigation, the case file was handed over to PW-7 for preparation of challan. 13. PW-7 SI/SHO Bhag Singh has stated that on 27.03.2015, “RUKKA”, Ex.PW6/A scribed by PW-6, H.C. Vinay Kumar was received in Police Station through constable Vijay Kumar (PW-5) for registration of case. Formal FIR, Ex.PW7/A, was registered. After preparation of the case file the same was handed over to C. Vijay Kumar (PW-5) with the direction to hand over the same to investigating officer on the spot. At about 8.30 A.M., on the same day, one parcel sealed with 9 seals of impression “K”, containing 2.250 kilograms cannabis alongwith sample seal drawn on a piece of cloth, copy of seizure memo, NCB-1 form in triplicate and other relevant documents were presented before him. This witness carried the resealing procedure and resealed the parcel containing contraband with three more seals of impression “U”. Column Nos. 9 to 11 of NCB form, Ex.PW4/A were filled in and completed by him. This witness carried the resealing procedure and resealed the parcel containing contraband with three more seals of impression “U”. Column Nos. 9 to 11 of NCB form, Ex.PW4/A were filled in and completed by him. Facsimile of seal impression “U” was taken on a separate piece of cloth, Ex.PW7/C. At 9.00 A.M., the aforesaid parcel along with relevant documents was handed over to PW-4 MHC Gian Chand along with keys of the vehicles for safe custody in ‘Malkhana’, with further directions to send the case property to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis. 14. PW-1 L.C. Urmila Thakur, proved copies of G.D. No. 49, Ex.PW1/A, G.D. No. 16, Ex.PW1/B, G.D. No.17, Ex.PW1/C, G.D. No.41, Ex.PW1/D, G.D. No.50, Ex.PW1/E, G.D. No.8, Ex.PW1/F and G.D. No.45, Ex.PW1/G. 15. PW-2, LHC Manoj Negi proved transit of case property along with SFSL report from SFSL, Junga to Police Station on 9.05.2015 and also proved its safe custody with him. 16. PW-3, H.C. Nirat Singh proved the receipt of special report, Ex.PW3/A in the office of Dy. S.P., Kullu on 27.03.2015 at 3.30 P.M. 17. PW-4, H.C. Gian Chand, MHC of Police Station Bhuntar, proved the receipt of parcel containing contraband along with other relevant documents from SHO/SI Bhag Chand (PW-7) for safe custody in ‘Malkhana’. As per this witness, the recovered contraband remained in safe custody of the ‘Malkhana’. It was sent to SFSL, Junga, through HHC Janesh Kumar for chemical analysis on 29.03.2015. He has also corroborated the receipt of the contraband after chemical analysis along with report of SFSL, Junga, through PW-2, Manoj Negi on 9.05.2015. 18. PW-9 HHC Janesh Kumar proved the transit of contraband from police station Bhuntar to SFSL, Junga, for chemical analysis and also proved its safe custody with him during the transit. 19. All the appellants have raised a common argument that the recovery of contraband from the appellants was not free from suspicion as no independent witness had been associated by the police. Both PW5 and PW-6 have stated that no independent witness was available due to night hours as also the seclusion of the place of ‘Naka’. They have also stated that there was no traffic on the road at relevant time. In the crossexamination PW-6 has stated that the Naka was laid at a distance of ½ kilometers from Seund Bazar, where shops and houses were situated. They have also stated that there was no traffic on the road at relevant time. In the crossexamination PW-6 has stated that the Naka was laid at a distance of ½ kilometers from Seund Bazar, where shops and houses were situated. He has also admitted that Village Hathithan was adjoining to Bhuntar side and its distance was about 400-500 meters from the spot and there were many houses inhabited by people at Hathithan. As per this witness, he had not sent any police official to call local people. He, however, explained that he could not to do so due to a smaller number of official with him. It is, thus, established that the investigating officer PW-6 had made no efforts to associate independent witnesses. However, it is to be seen as to whether non association of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case under the Act. The answer, based on settled legal position, is in negative. In Raveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020(12) SCALE 138 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “19. It would be gainsaid that lack of independent witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case. However, such omissions cast an added duty on Courts to adopt a greater-degree of care while scrutinizing the testimonies of the police officers, which if found reliable can form the basis of a successful conviction.” 20. Keeping in view, the above settled legal position, the scrutiny of prosecution evidence requires more stricter scan. As noticed above, the spot witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 have been unison in narration of sequence of facts having taken place on spot in their examination-in-chiefs. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants have made an endeavor to persuade us to believe that the case was foisted against the appellants and they were falsely implicated. In support of their arguments, reliance has been placed on certain material extracted from the cross-examinations of PW-5 and PW-6. One such fact as pointed out on behalf of the appellants is that while PW-5 stated that it was PW-6 who boarded the vehicle for checking the bag, whereas, PW-6 himself contradicted this position by saying that everyone remained outside the vehicle including him. One such fact as pointed out on behalf of the appellants is that while PW-5 stated that it was PW-6 who boarded the vehicle for checking the bag, whereas, PW-6 himself contradicted this position by saying that everyone remained outside the vehicle including him. Another discrepancy that has been pointed out from the statement of these two witnesses is that while according to PW-5 they had checked about 10 to 15 vehicles on way from Police Station to the spot, whereas, PW-6 stated that no such vehicles were checked on the way, rather 8 to 10 vehicles were checked on spot before the recovery of contraband from the appellants. Except these, no other contradiction could be pointed out by the appellants in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Though, the discrepancies as noticed above, are available in the statements of spot witnesses i.e. PW-5 and PW-6, but such discrepancies cannot held to be so material so as to vitiate the trial, keeping in views the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely, because the spot witnesses have given different version with respect to such facts, which otherwise are not material for adjudging the recovery and seizure of contraband, cannot fail prosecution. The police witnesses, who have to participate in investigation in many cases on regular basis, cannot be expected to make parrot like version while deposing in court. 22. Learned counsel representing appellant Kimti Lal, by taking us through the contents of seizure memo Ex.PW5/B, has contended that as per this document, the recovered contraband was said to be wrapped in polythene packet, whereas, the SFSL report, Ex.PW4/B contraband sent to laboratory was found in the shape of rectangular flat chapattis, some poly-wrapped and some in transparent zip poly packets. This argument, on close scrutiny of the record, is found to be misplaced for the reason that the benefit has been tried to be taken of the fact that word “LIFAFA” written in seizure memo, Ex.PW5/B, finds mention at such a place which is towards the end of right-hand margin of the paper and thus is not clearly written. A perusal of “RUKKA” Ex.PW6/B, FIR Ex.PW7/A and Special report, Ex.PW4/B, clearly mentions the word “LIFAFON”, thus, polythene packets in which recovered contraband was seizure were plural in number. 23. A perusal of “RUKKA” Ex.PW6/B, FIR Ex.PW7/A and Special report, Ex.PW4/B, clearly mentions the word “LIFAFON”, thus, polythene packets in which recovered contraband was seizure were plural in number. 23. It has also been contended on behalf the appellants that as per police case recovery of 2.250 kilograms of charas was made from the appellants, whereas, weighed charas in SFSL report, Ex.PW4/B is 2.214 kilograms. Again, we do not find this discrepancy to be material, which is clearly explainable. The total weight of the parcel received at SFSL, Junga was 2.308 Kg, out of which 0.094 Kg was the weight of polythene wrappers, zip poly packets, carry bag and parcel cloth and thus the net weight of contraband was found 2.214 kg. At the time of weighing of contraband by the police on spot it included the weight of polythene wrappers and zip poly packets in which the contraband was found, which can easily be assumed to weight the balance of 2.250 Kg-2.214 Kg =0.036 kg. Even otherwise, such minor discrepancy in weight can be caused due to weighment of contraband on different weighing scales. 24. It has also been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants that the investigating agency had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and thus cast a shadow of doubt on its story. Contention raised on behalf of appellants is that the rules framed for investigations under the NDPS Act are mandatory and have to be strictly followed. Neither the required sample was taken on spot nor the samples were preserved by complying Section 52-A of the Act. It has been argued that compliance of Section 52-A of the Act is mandatory. Reliance has been placed on Union of India vs. Mohanlal and another, (2016)3 SCC 379 , the relevant paragraphs No.15 to 19 thereof, read as under:- “15. It has been argued that compliance of Section 52-A of the Act is mandatory. Reliance has been placed on Union of India vs. Mohanlal and another, (2016)3 SCC 379 , the relevant paragraphs No.15 to 19 thereof, read as under:- “15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52- A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17.The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. 18. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. 18. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction. 19. Mr. Sinha, learned Amicus, argues that if an amendment of the Act stipulating that the samples be taken at the time of seizure is not possible, the least that ought to be done is to make it obligatory for the officer conducting the seizure to apply to the Magistrate for drawing of samples and certification etc. without any loss of time. The officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to report the act of seizure and the making of the application to the superior officer in writing so that there is a certain amount of accountability in the entire exercise, which as at present gets neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in this country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. “ 25. The appellants have also pressed into service para 89 of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & another, (2008)16 SCC 417 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “89. Guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied with but also in a case involving penal proceedings, vis-a-vis a departmental proceeding, rigors of such guidelines may be insisted upon. Another important factor which must be borne in mind is as to whether such directions have been issued in terms of the provisions of the statute or not. When directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith.” 26. Though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga's case (supra) has held that the guidelines should not only be substantial complied with but rigor of such guidelines may be instited upon. When directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith.” 26. Though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga's case (supra) has held that the guidelines should not only be substantial complied with but rigor of such guidelines may be instited upon. In Mohan Lal's case (supra), the practical aspects and difficulties have been taken into consideration and thus the Central Government had been advertised to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps to avoid confusion arising out of practical difficulties faced during the investigation of NDPS cases. 27. The precedent relied upon on behalf of the appellants, however, did not lay down the law that non compliance of Section 52-A of the Act is fatal to the prosecution case under NDPS Act. On the other hand, in State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand, (2004) 3 SCC 453 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of effect of noncompliance of Section 52-A has held as under: - 10. This contention too has no substance for two reasons. Firstly, Section 52A, as the marginal note indicates, deals with "disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances". Under Sub-section (1), the Central Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, is empowered to specify certain narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance's having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space and such other relevant considerations, so that even if they are material objects seized in a criminal case, they could be disposed of after following the procedure prescribed in Sub-sections (2) & (3). If the procedure prescribed in Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 52A is complied with and upon an application, the Magistrate issues the certificate contemplated by Subsection (2), then Sub-section (4) provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such inventory, photographs of narcotic drugs or substances and any list of samples drawn under Sub-section (2) of Section 52A as certified by the Magistrate, would be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence. Therefore, Section 52A(1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 11. Therefore, Section 52A(1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 11. Secondly, when the very same standing orders came up for considerations in Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380 , this Court took the vie that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the Officer-in-Charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention. 28. Since the recovery of the contraband was affected from a bag carried in a vehicle, thus it is not even a case of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. 29. Further it has been contented on behalf of appellant Kimti Lal that the documents of the vehicle and driving licence of appellant Kimti Lal were planted to show the recovery from the bag containing contraband. It is contended that no prudent man would create evidence against himself by placing something along with the contraband so as to identify himself therewith. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of appellants Sandeep Kumar and Om Prakash that nothing incriminating was found from inside the bag to connect and link them with the offence in question. According to them, the bag contained driving licence of appellant Kimti Lal and other documents of the vehicle besides the contraband, therefore, it cannot be said that the bag belonged to them or they had necessary knowledge about its contents. 30. As noticed above, statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are categoric to the fact that the bag was lying in between appellants Sandeep Kumar and Om Prakash, sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle and on checking it was found to contain contraband and driving licence of appellant Kimti Lal and other documents of the vehicle. Such versions of PW-5 and PW-6 have neither been challenged nor rebutted on behalf of the appellants. Such versions of PW-5 and PW-6 have neither been challenged nor rebutted on behalf of the appellants. It cannot be ignored that all the appellants had chosen to raise a common defence of denial and were defended by common counsel before the learned trial Court. They had chosen to swim and sink together and thus it is too late for them to throw blame on each other. 31. The learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence. The recovery and seizure of contraband has duly been proved from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellants. No explanation has been rendered by any of the appellants with respect to their inter-se relationship and their purpose of visit coupled with the other attending circumstances. The link evidence as led by the prosecution has remained unshaken. There is nothing to doubt the bonafide of the police in the facts and circumstances of the case. 32. Noticeably, the entire case of the prosecution resolved around recovery of contraband from the conscious possession of appellants. No investigation was there seeking probe into facts preceding the factum of recovery and similar remained the situation thereafter. To prove the charge of criminal conspiracy no tangible material was placed on record in the shape of legal evidence. 33. Thus, while affirming the findings recorded by learned Special Judge in respect of charge under section 20 of the Act, the charge under section 29 of the Act is held not proved against the appellants and thus the findings recorded by learned Special Judge in that regard are set aside. 34. In the light of the above discussion, the appeals are disposed of accordingly. The judgment and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions (Special) Judge, Kullu in Sessions trial No. 32 of 2015 is affirmed and maintained to the extent of conviction of appellants under section 20 of NDPS Act and the sentence imposed thereunder. 35. Records of learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.