JUDGMENT : Appellants have been convicted vide judgment dated 17.7.2017 for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) by learned Special Judge III, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 20ASJ-II/7 of 2015 and have been sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. 2. The appellants were charged for having been found in conscious possession of 1.954 Kgs. of cannabis/charas while travelling in a Himachal Roadways bus No. HP-03B-6176 on 29.01.2015 (for short, “Bus”). 3. As per prosecution, SI Rupesh Kant (for short ‘IO’) Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P.(PW-13), on 29.1.2015 at about 8.10 AM received a secret telephonic information to the effect that two persons sitting on seat Nos. 25 and 26 of the bus en-route from Shimla to Delhi were carrying charas in a bag which they had kept between their seats. The IO recorded the information vide Ext.PW-2/A and sent the same through PW-3 HHC Ram Lok to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Parwanoo. The I.O along-with HC Praveen, HC Achhar Singh and C. Balwant Singh proceeded towards the Timber Trail Resort (TTR) in Government vehicle driven by HHC Raj Pal and reached there at about 8.45 AM. Bus reached the spot at about 8.55 AM and was stopped at the instance of police party. Two persons, conforming to the identity provided in secret information, were found occupying seat Nos. 25 and 26 of the bus. Police party associated the conductor and driver of the bus namely Ami Chand and Braham Dass respectively (PW-1 and PW-7)as independent witnesses. Police personnel offered their personal search and memo Ext. PW-5/A was prepared. Thereafter the appellants were made aware about their right to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer vide memos Ext. PW-1/B and PW-1/C. Appellants opted to be searched by the I.O. On personal search of the appellants nothing incriminating was found, however, a bag was found placed and shared on the laps of the appellants. On search of such bag, charas in the shape of sticks weighing 1.954 Kgs. was recovered and recovery memo Ext. PW-1/H was prepared. The recovered contraband was seized and sealed with seal impression “A” and the memo Ext. PW-1/G was prepared. Facsimile of seal impression “A” was separately preserved on a piece of cloth. On search of such bag, charas in the shape of sticks weighing 1.954 Kgs. was recovered and recovery memo Ext. PW-1/H was prepared. The recovered contraband was seized and sealed with seal impression “A” and the memo Ext. PW-1/G was prepared. Facsimile of seal impression “A” was separately preserved on a piece of cloth. NCB form Ext PW-11/C was prepared and filled in triplicate. “Rukka” Ext. PW-13/B was prepared and sent to Police Station, Parwanoo through C. Balwant Singh (PW-5). FIR No. 14/15 Ext. PW-4/A was registered. SHO Police Station, Parwanoo, Inspector Meenakshi (PW-11) resealed the contraband with seal ‘R’. Facsimile of seal impression was preserved. Resealing certificate Ext. PW-11/B was prepared. Contraband was deposited in safe custody of “Malkhana”. The case file after registration of FIR was sent back to the spot through Constable Balwant. Appellants were formally arrested at about 3.30 PM vide arrest memos Ext. PW-13/F and PW-13/G and the information about their arrest was telephonically given to their friend on their asking. Photographs Ext. PW-13/A-1 to A-6 were clicked at the time of recovery of contraband. On 30.01.2015, the I.O prepared special report Ext. PW-2/C under Section 57 of the Act and sent the same to SDPO, Parwanoo. On 31.01.2015, the seized contraband along-with relevant documents was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis. The contraband was opined to be cannabis/charas vide SFSL report Ext. PX. The appellants were accordingly charged for offence under Section 20 of the Act and were tried and convicted as above. 4. Prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. PW-1 Ami Chand, PW-5 C Balwant Singh, PW-7 Braham Dass, PW-12 HC Achhar Singh and PW-13 I.O. SI Rupesh Kant were examined as spot witnesses. PW-7, Meenakshi, SHO, PS, Parwanoo was examined to prove the re-sealing proceedings conducted by her and also the preparation of “Challan” etc. PW-2 HC Rakesh Kumar, PW-3 HHC Ram Lok and PW-10 Dy. S.P. Pramod Chauhan were examined to prove compliance of Section 42(2) and 57 of the Act. PW-4 HC Hem Raj posted as MHC, PS, Parwanoo during relevant period was examined to prove the safe custody, dispatch and receipt of contraband in and from the Malkhana. PW-6 HHC Raj Pal was driver of the Government vehicle which commuted I.O along-with other police personnel to the spot on 29.01.2015. PW-4 HC Hem Raj posted as MHC, PS, Parwanoo during relevant period was examined to prove the safe custody, dispatch and receipt of contraband in and from the Malkhana. PW-6 HHC Raj Pal was driver of the Government vehicle which commuted I.O along-with other police personnel to the spot on 29.01.2015. PW-5 Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel was examined to prove the CDR details and billing address in respect of Mobile No. 98050-59807. Statements of appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was preferred by the appellants. 5. We have heard Mr. Nareshwar Chandel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent State. 6. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate, at the outset, has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that learned Special Judge had failed to consider the effect of statements of independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-7, who had not supported the case of prosecution. According to him, statements of PW-1 and PW-7 had belied the prosecution story and were sufficient to disbelieve the same. The conviction of the appellants, on the strength of above argument, has been stated to be without any legal evidence. It has been stressed on behalf of the appellants that according to the prosecution version the bag containing contraband was found on the laps of appellants sitting adjacent to each other on seat Nos. 25 and 26 of the bus, whereas PW-1 had categorically stated that the aforesaid bag was found from underneath the said seats. PW-7, other independent witness, had completely denied the factum of recovery of contraband from the appellants. 7. Perusal of statement of PW-1 reveals that this witness specifically stated that the bag was found under seat Nos. 25 and 26. Bag was opened by the police and contraband weighing 1.954 Kgs was recovered there from. It was sealed in a white coloured packet with seals carrying impression ‘A’. Facsimile of seal impression was taken on a white piece of cloth. He signed the white packet as well as white cloth carrying facsimile of seal. Seal was handed over to him. Photographs were taken on spot. Case property was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/H which was having his signature as well as signature of Braham Dass (PW-7). Facsimile of seal impression was taken on a white piece of cloth. He signed the white packet as well as white cloth carrying facsimile of seal. Seal was handed over to him. Photographs were taken on spot. Case property was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/H which was having his signature as well as signature of Braham Dass (PW-7). He identified the appellants to be the persons sitting on seat No. 25 and 26 of the bus on 29.01.2015. This witness also identified the case property. PW-1 was cross-examined by learned Prosecutor by declaring him hostile. He, however, denied that the appellants were holding the bag on their lap and that he was deposing falsely in connivance with police. Confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he denied having made statement mark ‘A’ to ‘A’ therein. In cross-examination on behalf of the appellants, PW-1 denied the factum of recovery from the bag in his presence. According to this witness, the bus was packed with passengers and some of them were even standing. Lastly, he admitted that false case was instituted by the police against the appellants. On re-examination by learned Prosecutor, PW-1 firstly admitted that police had made case on true facts but subsequently qualified his statement by stating that the bag was lying on the floor of the bus and that a false case was instituted. 8. PW-7 Braham Dass in his examination-in-chief denied all the facts supporting prosecution story save and except that bus driven by him was stopped by the police and search was conducted. He stated that he kept sitting on his seat and was not aware as to from where the recovery was effected. In cross-examination by learned Prosecutor, PW-7 though denied the fact that contraband was inside the bag, but stated that some substance was in the “Shape of slides”. He admitted the fact that bag containing substance was sealed in a packet and also admitted preparation of memo Ext.PW-1/H on spot and his signature thereon in red circle ‘B’. He also admitted his signature on memos Ext.PW-1/C, PW-1/D, PW-1/E, PW-1/A, PW-1/J, PW-1/G and PW-5/A. While being cross-examined on behalf of the appellants, PW-7 stated as under:- “It is incorrect that cannabis was not recovered from the possession of the accused persons and it was recovered from the floor of the bus.” 9. He also admitted his signature on memos Ext.PW-1/C, PW-1/D, PW-1/E, PW-1/A, PW-1/J, PW-1/G and PW-5/A. While being cross-examined on behalf of the appellants, PW-7 stated as under:- “It is incorrect that cannabis was not recovered from the possession of the accused persons and it was recovered from the floor of the bus.” 9. Analyzing the material excerpts, as noticed above, from the statements of PW-1 and PW-7 it becomes evident that these witnesses have tried to hide the truth. Both the witnesses were public servants and have admitted to have signed the recovery as well as seizure memo of contraband coupled with other documents evidencing the investigation conducted on spot. Importantly, none of these witnesses have rendered any explanation as to why they signed all such documents without any objection or resistance. It is case of none of these witnesses that they were under some pressure or threat to sign the documents. The fact of recovery of contraband from bus has been admitted by both theses witnesses. The statement of PW-1 that bag was found underneath seat No. 25 and 26 is belied by the contents of documentExt.PW-1/H which has been signed by him. Similarly, PW-7 has negated the suggestion of defence that cannabis was not recovered from the possession of appellants. Meaning thereby that according to him, the contraband was recovered from the appellants. This witness has also signed the recovery memo and thus his statement to the contrary without any reasonable explanation for deviation cannot be countenanced. 10. It is trite law that statements of hostile witnesses are not liable to be discarded completely. The statements of hostile witnesses to the extent are relevant and admissible can always be looked into. In the instant case, witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 appears to have twisted their statements for reasons best known to them. Such practices are not uncommon in our legal system. In Paulmeli & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 13 SCC 90 , the legal position has been explained as under : “22. In the instant case, witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 appears to have twisted their statements for reasons best known to them. Such practices are not uncommon in our legal system. In Paulmeli & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 13 SCC 90 , the legal position has been explained as under : “22. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr., 1996 AIR(SC) 2766, this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 320; Subbu Singh v. State by Public Prosecutor, 2009 (6) SCC 462 ; C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 AIR(SC) 3718; and Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2011 (2) SCC 36 ). Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.” Similarly in Raja and Others Vs. State of Karnataka (2016) 10 SCC 506 , it has been observed by Supreme Court as under : “32. That the evidence of a hostile witness in all eventualities ought not stand effaced altogether and that the same can be accepted to the extent found dependable on a careful scrutiny was reiterated by this Court in Himanshu @ Chintu by drawing sustenance of the proposition amongst others from Khujii vs. State of M.P., 1991 (3) SCC 627 and Koli Lakhman Bhai Chanabhai vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 (8) SCC 624 . It was announced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and is open for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record.” 11. It was announced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and is open for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptable and duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record.” 11. Viewing the matter from another angle also, statements of PW-1 and PW-7 can also not be discarded as a whole, as the Investigating Officer PW-13 had categorically deposed that statement of these witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW-13/D and Ex.PW-13/E were recorded by him according to their respective versions. Record reveals that this part of deposition of I.O, PW-13, has neither been challenged nor shaken. In Mahesh Janardhan Gonnade vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 13 SCC 271 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : (Para 49) It is the evidence of PW-PSI Dhimole that portion mark 'A' appearing in the statement of PW-1 was recorded by him correctly. The defence has not brought on record any evidence to show why the Investigating Officer had recorded mark 'A' portion of the statement of PW-1 incorrectly. If PW-1 the maker of the complaint has chosen not to corroborate his earlier statement made in the complaint and recorded during investigation, the conduct of such a witness for no plausible and tenable reasons pointed out on record, will give rise to doubt the testimony of the Investigating Officer who had sincerely and honestly conducted the entire investigation of the case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that PW-1 has tried to conceal the material truth from the Court with a sole purpose of shielding and protecting the appellant for reasons best known to the witness and therefore, no benefit could be given to the appellant for unfavorable conduct of this witness to the prosecution. 12. Thus, the argument raised by learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants, as noticed above, is liable to be rejected. The appellants cannot derive any benefit from mere fact that learned Special Judge had failed to consider and elaborate on this legal aspect of the matter. Even otherwise, the statement of PW-5 Constable Balwant Singh, PW-12 HC Achhar Singh and PW-13 SI Rupesh Kant are consistent and trustworthy in so far as the recovery of contraband from the appellants is concerned. All these witnesses have made depositions making the prosecution story credible. Even otherwise, the statement of PW-5 Constable Balwant Singh, PW-12 HC Achhar Singh and PW-13 SI Rupesh Kant are consistent and trustworthy in so far as the recovery of contraband from the appellants is concerned. All these witnesses have made depositions making the prosecution story credible. These witnesses have unanimously stated that they had firstly offered their personal search to the appellants and thereafter had conducted searches on their persons, after having afforded them option to be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer in compliance to the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The memos were prepared in this behalf which were also signed by PW-1 and PW-7. They have also been in unison so far as the placement of bag containing contraband is concerned. They have stated that bag was lying in between laps of appellants sitting on seat Nos. 25 and 26 of the bus. On search, charas weighing 1.954 Kgs was recovered. There is nothing to discredit the statement of these witnesses to above effect. Despite their lengthy cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to discredit them. The conviction can be maintained on the statement of police witnesses, provided they inspire confidence. Not only that the statement of PW-5, PW-12 and PW-13 are trustworthy, they get corroboration from the deposition of PW-1 and PW-7 on material aspects of the matter. In Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627 , the Supreme Court has observed 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.” 13. In addition to above, an argument has also been raised that since personal search on the persons of appellants were conducted at the first instance, provisions of Section 50 of the Act were required to be complied with in letter and spirit. According to learned counsel for the appellants, such compliance is discrepant. It has been submitted that police officials had failed to prove having offered their personal search before conducting search on the persons of appellants. It has also been stressed that option given to the appellants was not complying with the provisions of law. According to learned counsel for the appellants, such compliance is discrepant. It has been submitted that police officials had failed to prove having offered their personal search before conducting search on the persons of appellants. It has also been stressed that option given to the appellants was not complying with the provisions of law. This argument also deserves to be rejected for the reason that I.O. PW-13 was an officer authorized under Section 42 of the Act to conduct the search. He had given option to the appellants to be searched either before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Memos Ext.PW-1/B and Ext.PW-1/C were prepared in this behalf which clearly mentioned that the appellants were made aware of their right that they could get themselves searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer also. These memos were witnessed and signed by PW-1 and PW-7 who have not denied the execution of these documents, rather they have admitted their signatures thereon. In view of the material on record, the appellants have failed to show non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. 14. The aforesaid contention of the appellants otherwise also needs to be rejected in view of the fact that recovery, in fact, was effected from a bag belonging to appellants and not from their personal search. It is more than settled now that the compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required while searching the bag carried by any person and such search does not amount to a personal search of a person. Reliance can be placed on State of Punjab Vs Baljinder Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 473 , 15. As regards applicability of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act is 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 [State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] 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. 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 case [Dilip v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 377], 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 the said judgment in Dilip case [Dilip v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 377] is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh [State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] and other judgments. 15. In light of above-considered exposition of law, the reliance placed by learned Senior Advocate representing appellants on (2014) 5 SCC 345 State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and (2018) 18 SCC 380 Arif Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand can be said to be misplaced. In Arif Khan supra reliance was placed on Dilip Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 , which has now been held to be incorrect view by Baljinder Singh (supra). 16. Another fact that has been highlighted on behalf of the appellants is that the recovery memo of contraband Ext. PW-1/H described the contraband to be in the shape of sticks, whereas the report furnished by the SFSL mentioned the contraband to be in the shape of sticks and balls. Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State has drawn out attention to the photograph Ext PW-13/A-6 in which seized contraband is visible. PW-1/H described the contraband to be in the shape of sticks, whereas the report furnished by the SFSL mentioned the contraband to be in the shape of sticks and balls. Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State has drawn out attention to the photograph Ext PW-13/A-6 in which seized contraband is visible. These are in the shape of small oval sticks. The description by the Scientific Officer of the contraband to be sticks and balls cannot be faulted, keeping in view the shape of the contraband. There can be another possibility of breaking of certain small sticks of contraband in transit. Further, the appellants cannot be allowed to take any benefit therefrom for the reason that it was for them to have sought clarification on this aspect when the packet containing contraband was opened and exhibited before the Court during trial. 17. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellants that documents Ext.PW-11/C, NCB form is shown to have been filled at 12.10 PM. According to the appellants, this fact creates a doubt on the prosecution story. The bus was apprehended at 8.55 AM and it could not have taken three hours for the police to reach such stage of investigation when NCB form was filled. In our considered view, there is no substance in this argument of the appellants. As already held by us that there was nothing to discredit statements of police witnesses as far as the recovery of contraband is concerned. In this view of the matter, no benefit can be allowed to the appellants merely for the reason that the police took almost three hours to complete preliminary investigation. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the fact that process of resealing conducted by PW-11 was in fact a fresh sealing and not resealing. It has been argued that resealing means the affixation of seals on the packet already sealed and not that the sealed packet is placed in another packet and then sealed. We do not find any substance in such argument also. It has duly been proved that SHO having received the contraband from spot through PW-5 C Balwant Singh, had placed the same in another fresh packet and was sealed with seal ‘R’. We do not find any substance in such argument also. It has duly been proved that SHO having received the contraband from spot through PW-5 C Balwant Singh, had placed the same in another fresh packet and was sealed with seal ‘R’. Such sealed packet was deposited in Malkhana in the same state and was also received at SFSL in the same condition. No constrictive interpretation can be allowed to the procedure of resealing required during investigation of case under the Act. 19. There is nothing on record to infer foisting of false case against the appellants. The defence has failed to prove any ulterior motive of the police in false implication of appellants, that too, for such a huge quantity of contraband. Such quantity cannot be presumed to have been planted by the police especially in a bus packed with passengers. It cannot be presumed that not only the appellants but none of other passengers had guts to object to the conduct of the police. 20. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellants. 21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.