JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. Appellant assails judgment and sentence order dated 16.11.2019, passed by learned Special Judge (1), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘ND&PS’ Act) and to pay a fine of Rs. One lac, in default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of prosecution in nutshell was that on 31.01.2016, the team of police officials comprising of PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh, PW-10 C. Harash Chand No. 572, PW-11 H.C. Durga Dass No. 408, PW-13 HHC Balwant Singh No. 363 alongwith HHG Khem Raj, HHG Khem Singh and HHG Dinesh Kumar, left police post Balichowki for routine patrol duty, vide DDR No. 3. Ext.PW-6/A. 3. ‘Nakka’ was laid at place known as Shilli-Larji, at about 10:45 am. Within ten minutes, the appellant was noticed by PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh, at some distance, who was approaching towards the police party. However, on noticing the police, the appellant had turned back and started walking briskly. Appellant was holding a bag in his right hand. 4. The place where appellant was apprehended was secluded and immediately no independent witness was available. An attempt was made by PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh to search for independent witness through PW-10 C. Harash Chand, but none was available. PW-11 HC Durga Dass and PW-13 HHC Balwant Singh, were associated as witnesses. 5. PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh with the help of other police officials, apprehended the appellant, who got perplexed. A suspicion was entertained from the conduct of the appellant. PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh gave option to the appellant to be searched either before some gazetted officer or the Magistrate. Appellant consented to be searched by the police party. Consent memo Ext.PW-11/A was prepared. Police officials offered their search vide memo Ext.PW-11/B. Thereafter, the bag carried by the appellant was searched and charas was found therein. Recovered charas was weighed and found 1kg 600 grams. 6. The recovered charas was repacked in the same bag and was placed in a white cloth parcel and sealed with nine seals with impression ‘T’. Recovery and seizure memo Ext.PW-11/C was prepared. Facsimile of sample seal Ext.PW-11/B was preserved. Column Nos. Recovered charas was weighed and found 1kg 600 grams. 6. The recovered charas was repacked in the same bag and was placed in a white cloth parcel and sealed with nine seals with impression ‘T’. Recovery and seizure memo Ext.PW-11/C was prepared. Facsimile of sample seal Ext.PW-11/B was preserved. Column Nos. 1 to 8 of NCB Form Ext.PW-7/A were filled by PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh. 7. ‘Rukka’ Ext.PW-8/A was prepared and was sent to Police Station through PW-10 C. Harash Chand. PW-8 S.I. Pritam Singh received Rukka Ext.PW-8/A at Police Station, Aut and FIR Ext.PW-8/B was accordingly registered. PW-10 C. Harash Chand, brought the case file to spot for further investigation. Appellant was formally arrested. Accused alongwith sealed parcel (case property), NCB form and sample seals etc. were taken to police station and handed over to PW-7 Insp. Lokender Negi. PW-7 re-sealed the sealed parcel containing contraband with six seals of impression ‘A’. He issued re-sealing certificate Ext.PW-7/C. The case property alongwith NCB form and sample seals, were handed over to PW-9 HC Santosh Kumar, for safe custody in ‘Malkhana’ of Police Station, Aut. 8. On 02.02.2016, PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh, prepared special report under Section 57 of the Act and sent the same to PW-2 ASP Mandi through PW-4 HHC Duni Chand. Special report Ext.PW-2/A was received on the same day by PW-2 ASP Mandi and entry to this effect was made by PW-3 HC Laxman Dass in relevant register, abstract of which has been exhibited as Ext.PW-3/A. 9. On completion of investigation, the challan was prepared. Appellant was charged as under: “That on 31.01.2016 at about 10:45 pm at place Shilli Larji road Ravinda, District Mandi, H.P. you were found in exclusive and conscious possession of 1 kg 600 gram charas and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 20 of ND & PS Act and within the cognizance of this Court.” Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. Prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. 11. We have heard Mr. Suram Singh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Kamal Kant, learned Deputy Advocate General and perused the record. 12. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. 11. We have heard Mr. Suram Singh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Kamal Kant, learned Deputy Advocate General and perused the record. 12. The manner and sequence of events which led to apprehension of appellant and recovery of 1kg 600 grams of charas has been narrated by PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-13 through their statements on oath made before learned Trial Court. All of them were spot witnesses and had stated in unison that a team of police officials left police post Balichowki on 31.01.2016, at 9:00 am for routine patrol duty and reached place known as Shilli-Larji, at about 10:45 am. 13. A ‘nakka’ was laid. After about 10 minutes, PW-12 ASI Jeet Singh, noticed appellant approaching the police party, but abruptly he turned back and started walking briskly. Police got suspicious and apprehended the appellant. Option was given to the appellant to be either searched before gazetted officer or Magistrate. He offered himself to be searched by police officials. His consent was obtained, vide consent memo Ext.PW-11/A. Police officials offered their search, vide memo Ext.PW-11/B. Thereafter, the bag carried by appellant was searched and charas weighing 1kg 600 grams was recovered. The recovered charas was repacked and placed in a white cloth parcel sealed with nine seals of impression ‘T’. Recovery and seizure memo Ext.PW-11/C, was prepared. Sample seal was preserved, vide memo Ext.PW-11/D. Relevant columns of NCB form Ext.PW-7/A were filled. ‘Rukka’ Ext.PW-8/A was prepared and sent to Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR Ext.PW-8/B was registered. Appellant was formally arrested and brought to police station alongwith seized contraband, NCB form and sample seals. The sealed parcel was re-sealed by PW-7 Ins. Lokender Negi. He issued re-sealing certificate. 14. The spot witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant at length, but nothing material could be elicited, so as to doubt their statements. No material contradictions could be pointed out from their statements by learned counsel for the appellant. 15. PW-6 HHC Khem Singh proved the recording of DDR No. 3, dated 31.01.2016, Ext.PW-6/A evidencing the departure of the team of police officials alongwith Home Guards for routine patrol duty. No material contradictions could be pointed out from their statements by learned counsel for the appellant. 15. PW-6 HHC Khem Singh proved the recording of DDR No. 3, dated 31.01.2016, Ext.PW-6/A evidencing the departure of the team of police officials alongwith Home Guards for routine patrol duty. The mode by which police team reached Shilli-Larji has also been stated in one voice by all the witnesses when confronted in cross-examination. It was stated that police team had reached the spot by using services of Tata-Sumo vehicle. The driver of the vehicle had acceded to the request of police party and had dropped them on spot. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not apprehended at Shilli-Larji. From the perusal of statements of the spot witnesses, it has been found that such statements are convincing and trustworthy as nothing contrary has been stated by either of them to the prosecution case. 16. Though, the compliance of Section 50 of the Act was not required for carrying out search of the bag carried by appellant yet the police by way of abundant caution had given the option to the appellant who had consented to be searched by police party, vide consent memo Ext.PW-11/A. The police party had also offered their search, vide Ext.PW-11/B. This is not the case where any material has been placed on record to suggest even remotely the false implication of the appellant. It has also been proved by convincing evidence that seized contraband was properly sealed in a cloth parcel and was taken in such preserved condition to the Police Station, where the SHO again re-sealed the same with six seals of impression ‘A’. Re-sealing certificate Ext.PW-7/C was issued. The evidence brought on record to this effect has not been shattered in any manner. 17. Further, the case property was kept by PW-9 HC Santosh Kumar in safe custody of ‘Malkhana’ register alongwith sample seals and NCB Form. The entry to this effect made in ‘Malkhana’ register has been proved by producing on record the abstract of such entry, vide Ext.PW-9/A. There is nothing on record to suggest that the case property was tampered while in custody of ‘Malkhana’. Similarly, the transit of case property from Police Station, Aut to S.F.S.L. Junga and its return after chemical analysis has been proved by PW-5 C. Mitter Dev and PW-1 Shashi Kumar. Similarly, the transit of case property from Police Station, Aut to S.F.S.L. Junga and its return after chemical analysis has been proved by PW-5 C. Mitter Dev and PW-1 Shashi Kumar. Again, their testimonies regarding safe custody of contraband during transit have remained unshaken. 18. The entire bulk of charas recovered from the appellant was sent to S.F.S.L. Junga, which after examination submitted its report Ext.PA confirming the substance to be extract of ‘cannabis’ and sample of charas. 19. Thus, the recovery of 1kg 600 grams of charas has been duly proved from the conscious possession of the appellant, which is an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND &PS Act. Laboratory report Ext.PA proved the substance recovered from the appellant to be the charas. The compliance of Section 57 of the Act has also been proved by PW-2 ASP Mandi, PW-4 HHC Duni Chand and PW-3 HC Laxman Dass. Special report Ext.PW-/2/A was prepared by PW-12 on 02.02.2016 and was sent through PW-4 HHC Duni Chand to be handed over to PW-2 ASP Mandi. It has been proved from the statement of PW-2 that he had received special report Ext.PW-2/A on 02.02.2016 and had handed over the same to his Reader PW-3 HC Laxman Dass for placing the same on record. PW-3 HC Laxman Dass has also confirmed aforesaid fact and also has proved the abstract of relevant register Ext.PW-3/A. We have also perused the impugned judgment. Learned Special Judge has considered the entire oral as well as documentary evidence in right perspective. The findings and conclusion drawn by learned Special Judge are borne out from the records. Such findings and conclusion need to be confirmed on the basis of analysis made herein. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of police witnesses could not be relied upon for the reasons, firstly, they were interested witnesses and secondly, there was sufficient opportunity for the police to have associated independent witnesses. He referred to the cross-examination of spot witnesses, who had admitted that the Larji Dam is at the distance of about 200 mtrs. from the spot and police could have easily managed the association of independent witnesses. It has also been submitted that the spot, where the ‘nakka’ was laid, was on a busy highway having regular vehicular traffic. He referred to the cross-examination of spot witnesses, who had admitted that the Larji Dam is at the distance of about 200 mtrs. from the spot and police could have easily managed the association of independent witnesses. It has also been submitted that the spot, where the ‘nakka’ was laid, was on a busy highway having regular vehicular traffic. Association of independent witnesses could have easily been managed by stopping some vehicle passing through the spot. 21. As regards, the first leg of the argument so raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it can be safely said that in view of the settle legal proposition, the statements of police witnesses cannot be discarded or ignored on the allegation that they are interested witnesses. In Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. Further, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that no independent witness was examined, despite the fact they were available. In this regard, it is to be noticed from the depositions of Devi Lal, Head Constable (PW-1), during the course of cross- examination, has stated that efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none were available. The mere fact that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that same should not be believed. 15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, relied on by the counsel for the respondent-State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status. 16. In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Sunil and Another, (2001) 1 SCC 652 , it was held as under: “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Courts cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a presumption of law, the presumption would be the other way round. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Courts cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a presumption of law, the presumption would be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature.” 22. In Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627 , the legal positon has been summarized as under: “12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case.” 23. In Raveen Khan vs. State of H.P. (2020) 12 Scale 138 , reiteration of aforesaid exposition has been made 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.” 24. As regards the second leg of argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said to be of much relevance in the given facts of the case. The fact situation was that police party had laid the ‘nakka’ and immediately thereafter had spotted appellant at some distance, who got perplexed and started walking back. The conduct of appellant was sufficient to raise suspicion in the minds of police officials. At that stage, had the appellant not been apprehended immediately, police could have lost the opportunity to recover the contraband. Looking from another angle, the relevance of independent witnesses could be there, when such witnesses were immediately available or had already been associated at the place of ‘nakka’. These, however are not mandatory conditions and will always depend on the fact situation of each and every case. The reason is that once the person is apprehended and is with police, subsequent association of independent witnesses, may not be of much help. In such events, the manipulation, if any, cannot be ruled out. 25. These, however are not mandatory conditions and will always depend on the fact situation of each and every case. The reason is that once the person is apprehended and is with police, subsequent association of independent witnesses, may not be of much help. In such events, the manipulation, if any, cannot be ruled out. 25. The Courts, for the above reasons, are mandated to scrutinize the statements of police witnesses minutely and scrupulously and in case, such statements are found convincing and trustworthy, can rely upon such statements in light of the exposition of law, detailed above. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that there was no compliance of Section 52-A in the case and hence, the proceedings were vitiated. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by learned Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohan Lal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 . However, the perusal of said judgment reveals that no such mandate has been issued by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, reference can be made to State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand, (2004) 4 SCC 453 in which it has been clearly held that non-compliance of Section 52-A will not vitiate the proceedings or the trial. The purpose of Section 52-A is to provide a mechanism, whereby there is no misuse of the contraband recovered by the authorities and the same is kept in safe custody and/or destroyed with promptitude. 27. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial against the appellant was vitiated for non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. We, however, disagree with such contentions for the reasons that the compliance was made in this case as evident from the statements of the witnesses as well as documents Ext.PW-11/A and Ext.PW-11/B. The recovery was made from the bag carried by appellant. In such a situation, Section 50 of the Act was not required to be complied with. In State of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 473 , it has been held as under: “15. As regards applicability of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to “personal search” and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises. 16. As regards applicability of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to “personal search” and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises. 16. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states that the conviction may not be based “only” on the basis of possession of an illicit article recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act but if there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly be looked into. 17. In the instant case, the personal search of the accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid. 18. The decision of this Court in Dilip’s case, however, has not adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to confer advantage upon the accused even in respect of recovery from the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to personal search were not complied with. In our view, the decision of this Court in said judgment in Dilip’s case is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and other judgments.” 28. On the basis of above analysis, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment holding appellant guilty of offence under Section 20 of ND&PS Act. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgment and uphold the conviction and sentence of appellant as imposed by learned Special Judge (1), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. vide judgment and sentence order dated 16.11.2019, in Session Trial No. 28 of 2016. 29. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.