JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent, Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB). 2. In this appeal, under section 372(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 36 of the NDPS Act, the appellant-Smt. Malti Devi, has put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 14.08.2017, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in NDPS Case No. 16(1)/2015, under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order, the learned court below has sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present appeal, under section 372(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with section 36 of the NDPS Act is briefly stated as under: “On 14.06.2015, at around 11.00 hours, one Sanjay Singh, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati, has received information to the effect that one Smt. Malti Devi is travelling from Dimapur to New Alipurdawar by Intercity Express, with a consignment of Heroin. Then the Intelligence Officer had reduced the said information into writing, and submitted the same to the Zonal Director, NCB Guwahati, namely, Prabin Kumar. Thereafter, a team, comprising of Officers and Staffs of NCB, headed by Ms. Tulika Morang, Superintendent, is constituted vide office Order No. 04/06/NCB/Ghy/OO-ZD/09/Vol-II, dated 14.06.2015, to investigate the same. Thereafter, the said team arrived at Platform No. 7, of Guwahati Railway Station, at about 13.30 hours, where Intercity Express from Dimapur was to arrive. Then the Intelligence Officer had approached two independent witnesses, namely, Smt. Sarita Saikia of Six Mile, Guwahati and one Ramen Deka, Hatigaon, Guwahati and requested them to become witness in the process of search and seizure. Then the Intercity Express arrived at Platform No. 7, at about 13.45 hours from Dimapur and as shown by the informer they have found the suspected woman, sitting in one compartment of the Train. The woman introduced herself as Malati Devi and thereafter, the team requested her to disembark from the Train with the luggage at the Platform No. 7. Thereafter, observing all the formalities, under section 54 of the NDPS Act, Ms. The woman introduced herself as Malati Devi and thereafter, the team requested her to disembark from the Train with the luggage at the Platform No. 7. Thereafter, observing all the formalities, under section 54 of the NDPS Act, Ms. Tulika Morang, a lady member of the train has conducted search of her person and found no contraband substance. But, during the search of the nylon bag, being carried by her, one polythene bag containing brown coloured powdered like substance, suspected to be Heroin was recovered. Then the Intelligence Officer had taken out a small quantity of material from the same and tested with the help of a detection kit, being carried by him, and the sample gave positive report for Heroin. Then on being asked, Malati Devi confessed that it was Heroin and then the team weighed the same in presence of witnesses, and the weight is found to be of 2.6 kg. Thereafter, observing the procedure, under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, and having believed committing an offence under section 8 of the NDPS Act, the Intelligence Officer had seized the same in presence of witnesses preparing Search and Seizure Memo and Panchnama. The Intelligence Officer had also found one Railway Concession Certificate, one Voter I/D Card, one photo copy of voter I/D Card, one Train Ticket, dated 14.06.2015, from Dimapur to Alipurduwar, and a sum of Rs. 2,170/- and seized the same. Thereafter, the Intelligence Officer had drawn up a sample from the same, in presence of witnesses, on the spot and arrested Malati Devi, who stated that she had collected the consignment of 2.6 kg of Heroin from one Md. Hasan, on 13.06.2015, and she was going to deliver the same to one Gopal Dubey @ Panditji of Bihar and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to her for carrying the consignment Heroin from Dimapur and two months back, she also carried Heroin from Md. Hasan to Gopal Dubey, and in the year 2011, she had carried Ganja from Dimapur to Kolkata and she did the same for monetary benefit. Then on 15.06.2015, the Intelligence Officer produced Malati Devi, along with the seized articles, before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) and thereafter, he sent the sample of Heroine to the FSL, Guwahati and thereafter, collected the report. Then on 15.06.2015, the Intelligence Officer produced Malati Devi, along with the seized articles, before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) and thereafter, he sent the sample of Heroine to the FSL, Guwahati and thereafter, collected the report. The report indicates that the sample gave positive test for Morphine and on completion of investigation final complaint is laid against Malati Devi to stand trial in the court under section 21(C) of the NDPS Act for contravention of provision of 8(C) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and a case being NDPS Case No. 16(1)/2015, is registered and the learned court below, after hearing both sides, has framed charge against the accused under section 21(C) of the NDPS Act and on being read and explained over, the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the prosecution side has examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Then closing the prosecution evidence, the learned court below has examined the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned court below has convicted the appellant under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced her as aforesaid.” 4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused/appellant preferred this appeal, and contended to allow the same on the following grounds: (i) That, the evidence on record does not warrant conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and as such the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. (ii) That, the search and seizure was made under section 43 of the NDPS Act in presence of 2 independent witnesses, but, the prosecution side has failed to examine them during the trial, which casts doubt about the veracity of the search and seizure and as such, the impugned judgment and order, dated 14.07.2017, and sentence dated 16.08.2017, is liable to be set aside. (iii) That, there is contradiction regarding the place of seizure in version of the prosecution witnesses and as per PW-4, search and seizure was made at RPF Office in Platform No. 1, and some of the witnesses deposed that the search and seizure was made in the Platform No. 7, which also casts doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. (iv) That, the learned court below arrived on the finding that Section 42 of the NDPS Act has been complied with by the prosecution side but the said section is not attracted here in this case and as such, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. (v) That, the search and seizure was made on 14.06.2015, but, the sample was sent for chemical examination on 16.06.2015 and there is no evidence how the sample was kept during the aforesaid period and there is no explanation for delay of 48 hours and as such, the order of conviction and sentence liable to be set aside. (vi) That, there is violation of the instruction laid in the Manual Book of NCB in respect of management of witnesses. (vii) That, the report of FSL could not be relied upon and the learned court below has misread the evidence and therefore, it is contended to allow the appeal. 5. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant, besides submitting written synopsis of argument, supplemented the same by oral argument, and canvassed following point before this court for consideration: (i) The prosecution side has failed to examine the independent witnesses during trial. (ii) There is discrepancy in the versions of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the place of seizure of the contraband substance. (iii) There are different versions of prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of contraband substance seized from the possession of the accused. (iv) The search and seizure is doubtful. (v) There is wrong appreciation of provision of law by the learned court below. These circumstances, according to Mr. Das, have cast a serious doubt about the veracity of prosecution version, and therefore, Mr. Das contended to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 6. Per-contra, Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel, NCB has also submitted synopsis of argument, and supplemented the same by oral argument, wherein, Mr. Kayel has controverted the submissions of Mr. Das and supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the appeal and the documents placed on record and also perused the record of the learned court below and the case laws, referred by the learned counsel for both the parties. 8. The prosecution side examined Shri Sanjoy Singh, Intelligence Officer, as PW-4. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the appeal and the documents placed on record and also perused the record of the learned court below and the case laws, referred by the learned counsel for both the parties. 8. The prosecution side examined Shri Sanjoy Singh, Intelligence Officer, as PW-4. His evidence reveals that based on source information - Ext.5, received on 14.06.2015, a team of Officers and Staffs was constituted by the Zonal Director, NCB vide Ext.6, Officer Order, No. 04/06/NCB/Ghy/OO-ZD/09/Vol-II dated 14.06.2015, and the team reached at Platform No. 7, where, at about 13.45 hours, the Intercity Express arrived. He had also requested two persons, namely, Smt. Sarita Saikia of Six Mile, Guwahati and one Ramen Deka, Hatigaon, Guwahati, to become witness of search and seizure and both of them acceded to the request. And thereafter, as pointed out by the informer, they have found the accused in a compartment and requested her to disembark from the Train and thereafter, they have taken her to RPF Office situated at Platform No. 1 and the lady Officer in their team, observing the formalities, conducted search on her person, but, found nothing. Thereafter, having conducted search in the bag, being carried by her, they have found 2.6 kg of Heroin, and having tested a small amount of the same, with the Testing Kit, being carried by him, he found the same to be Heroin. 9. Then PW-4 had seized the same vide Ext.9, the Search and Seizure list, and the Panchnama, Ext.10, in presence of independent witnesses and the accused. The evidence of PW-4, in respect of search and seizure, finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-5 Smt. Tulika Morang, PW-6 Shri Suresh Kumar Singh. All these four witnesses were part of the team constituted by PW-7 Shri Praveen Kumar, Deputy Director, NCB, vide Ext.6, the Office Order, dated 14.06.2015. However, the evidence of PW-3 Shri Santanu Guha, reveals that seizure was made at Platform No. 9. Whereas, the Search list - Ext.9, reveals that search was made at Platform No. 7. Thus, apparently, some contradictions are there in respect of search and seizure. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this contradiction casts serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The counter submission of Mr. Whereas, the Search list - Ext.9, reveals that search was made at Platform No. 7. Thus, apparently, some contradictions are there in respect of search and seizure. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this contradiction casts serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The counter submission of Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the NCB is that the search and the seizure of contraband substance from the possession of the appellant has duly been proved by the prosecution witnesses and as such contradiction in respect of place of search and seizure would have no bearing in the prosecution case. 10. I have considered the said submission of learned Advocates of both sides in the light of evidence on the record. It appears that the evidence of PW-4, 5 and 6 are clear and cogent in respect of recovery of contraband substance from the possession of the appellant. And having not been disputed by the appellant during cross-examination, their evidence goes a long way to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that seizure was made at RPF Office at Platform No. 1. The contradictions, so pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, to the considered opinion of this court failed to spell inveracity to the prosecution version in respect of seizure. Thus, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Keyal, the learned standing counsel for the NCB. 11. Further, the evidence of PW-4 reveals that while carrying out the search and seizure, the requisite procedure was followed, and the appellant side has not disputed the same. The evidence of the PW-4 also reveals that he had drawn up the sample from the seized contraband substance and prepared Test Memo-Ext.14, and forwarded the same with the sample to the FSL, Kahilipara, Guwahati for analysis. The evidence of PW-2 Shri Gajendra Nath Deka, Joint Director, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory and the report of analysis - Ext.3, reveals that the sample gave positive test for Morphine and the percentage of Morphine in the sample is found to be 43.65. It is to be noted here that appellant has not disputed the report - Ext.3 and the evidence of the PW-2 during cross-examination. 12. However, there appears to be some contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of the contraband. It is to be noted here that appellant has not disputed the report - Ext.3 and the evidence of the PW-2 during cross-examination. 12. However, there appears to be some contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of the contraband. The evidence of PW-4 reveals that he took out small amount of the same and testing the same in the Testing Kit, he found it to be Heroine. PW-5, who conducted search, also deposed that the sample gave positive test for Heroine. PW-3 and PW-6 also testified the same fact. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed this out during argument and contended to disbelieve the prosecution case. Nevertheless, this contradiction would have no bearing upon the prosecution case, in as much as the report of the FSL, i.e. Ext.3, has clearly indicated that the sample gave positive test for Morphine. And neither the evidence of PW-2, nor the report-Ext.3, was disputed by the appellant side in cross-examination. Mr. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for NCB, submits that Heroin is an opioid drugs made from Morphine, and in support of his submission he has referred to a decision of Calcutta High Court in T. Pal Kuki vs. State of West Bengal, 1992 (0) Supreme (Cal.) 446, wherein it has been held that Heroin is nothing but directly morphine which is an opium derivative according to the definition given under section 2(xvi). Mr. Keyal further submits that irrespective of being Morphine or Heroin, it is a prohibited drug, under section 8 of the NDPS Act. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Keyal, and the decision of Calcutta High Court also strengthen his submission. And as such, the contradiction would have no bearing upon the veracity of the prosecution case. 13. The evidence of PW-4 also reveals that at Platform No. 7 of Guwahati Railway Station he had requested two independent witnesses, namely, Mrs. Sarita Saikia and Shri Ramani Deka and they have accepted the request and the search and seizure was made in presence of the said independent witnesses and Search and Seizure list, Ext.9, and the Punchnama, Ext.10, were prepared. But, admittedly, said independent witnesses have not been examined. Mr. Sarita Saikia and Shri Ramani Deka and they have accepted the request and the search and seizure was made in presence of the said independent witnesses and Search and Seizure list, Ext.9, and the Punchnama, Ext.10, were prepared. But, admittedly, said independent witnesses have not been examined. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant, referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamaljit Singh @ Papu vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 14 SCC 9 , submits that this non examination of the independent witnesses and failing to explain the reason casts a serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. Mr. Das further submits that the Investigating Agency has not followed the mandate of the NCB Manual, which provides for witness management and without verifying the name, parentage, age, occupation, permanent address, present address, office address of the witnesses, the search and seizure was made, and later on, said witnesses could not be found in their given address. 14. Whereas, Mr. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the NCB, submits that though the independent witnesses could not be examined before the learned court below, as they could not be found in their given address, yet, the evidence of other official witnesses cannot be disbelieved, and their evidence fully established the prosecution version beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of his submission Mr. Keyal has referred two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 13 SCC 808 and Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627 , to bolster his submissions. The law, in respect of examination of independent witnesses, in the cases under NDPS Act, are well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, including the decisions referred by Mr. Keyal. What can be crystallized from the same is that - there is no law that the evidence of the police officials, unless supported by independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance. If police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy and all of them have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence side then the same can be acted upon. Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requirement and non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. 15. If police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy and all of them have been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence side then the same can be acted upon. Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requirement and non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. 15. In the instant case PW-4, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are thoroughly cross-examined by the appellant side and nothing tangible could be elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. There is ample corroboration in their versions in respect of seizure of contraband substance from the possession of the appellant. And the Search and Seizure list and the Panchnama are also consistent with their evidence, except, however, the place of seizure, which is already held to be of inconsequential. There is no contradiction in respect of seizure of the contraband from the possession of the appellant. That being so, I am unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Das, the leaned counsel for the appellant and the decision, referred by him, would not advance his case. On the other hand I find sufficient force in the submission Mr. Keyal and the decision referred by him also strengthen his submission. It is to be noted here that the decision in Rizwan Khan (supra) is a three judge bench decision and subsequent to the decision in Kamaljit Singh @ Papu (supra) which is decision of two judge bench. So, in view of the doctrine of precedent, the decision of Rizwan Khan (supra) will prevail over the decision in Kamaljit Singh @ Papu (supra). 16. The evidence of PW-4 also reveals that having apprehended the appellant, a Notice - Ext.11, under section 67 NDPS Act was issued to her to record her voluntary statement and she then confessed that the consignment of Heroin was given to her by one Md. Hasan at Dimapur, and thereafter, she was going to deliver the same to one Gopal Dubey of Bihar. PW-4 has confirmed Ext.12, her statement under section 67 NDPS Act. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment that the learned court below has relied upon the said statement while finding guilt of the appellant. Mr. Hasan at Dimapur, and thereafter, she was going to deliver the same to one Gopal Dubey of Bihar. PW-4 has confirmed Ext.12, her statement under section 67 NDPS Act. Further, it appears from the impugned judgment that the learned court below has relied upon the said statement while finding guilt of the appellant. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has appreciated the provisions of law wrongly and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2013) 16 SCC 31 , statement of the accused cannot be relied upon to record a finding of guilt of the accused. 17. Controverting the above submission, Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the NCB, submits that though to some extent the learned court below has relied upon the statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, while convicting the accused, yet, the same was corroborated by official witnesses, and the decision of Tofan Singh (supra) is subsequent to the impugned judgment, and as such the same would not advance the case of the appellant. 18. It is to be noted here that in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that statement recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. That being so, there is substance in the submission of Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant. But, the decision of Toofan Singh (supra) was of dated 29 October, 2020. Whereas, the impugned judgment was of dated 14th August, 2017. Mr. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel has rightly pointed this out during argument. Moreover, the statement of the appellant is not the sole basis of conviction, so recorded by the learned court below. The learned court below has relied upon the clear and cogent evidence, adduced by the PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-3, while recording conviction of the appellant. Therefore, this court is left unimpressed by the submission of Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. The evidence of PW-4 reveals that after recording statement of the appellant under section 67 of the NDPS Act he caused arrest of the appellant and forwarded her to the court. Therefore, this court is left unimpressed by the submission of Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. The evidence of PW-4 reveals that after recording statement of the appellant under section 67 of the NDPS Act he caused arrest of the appellant and forwarded her to the court. Thereafter, he packed the 2.6 kg of Morphine, Material Exhibit-1, by wrapping the same with Hesian Cloths and sealed the same and obtained signatures of the witnesses and accused and produced the same-Material Exhibit-1, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup. He also confirmed Ext.14, the Test Memo, vide which the Superintendent-Smt. Tulika Morang had forwarded the sample to the FSL on 16.06.2015. He also confirmed Material Exhibit 3, the yellow coloured sealed envelope, containing 5 gms of sample with signature of the accused and witnesses and Material Exhibit-4, the envelop forwarded by FSL to the Superintendent, containing the remnant of the sample, and Material Exhibit-5, the remnant of the sample. He also confirmed Material Exhibit-6, the Nylon Packet, from where 2.6 kg of Morphine was recovered, and Exhibit 17, the godown receipt of depositing Material Exhibit-1. PW-5 Smt. Tulika Morang also confirmed Ext.17, the godown receipt, and she further confirmed receipt of seized article being the In-Charge of godown. 20. Another limb of argument of Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the seized consignment and the remnant of the sample were not produced before the court and the same cast doubt about the prosecution version. Mr. Das also referred a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Pandey vs. State of U.P. (2019) 18 SCC 215 , in support of his submission. It is fact that while examining the PW-2, the prosecution side has not produced the remnant of sample before him for confirmation, and it has also not produced the seized contraband article while examining PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6. But, as discussed in forgoing para, the same were duly produced and proved by PW-4, and I find no ground to disbelieve the same. It is to be noted here that, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi Ram, (2019) 10 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “if the seizure of material is otherwise proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed, the entire contraband material need not be placed before the Court. It is to be noted here that, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi Ram, (2019) 10 SCC 649 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “if the seizure of material is otherwise proved on record and is not even doubted or disputed, the entire contraband material need not be placed before the Court. If the seizure is not in doubt, there is no requirement that the entire material ought to be produced before the Court. Be it mentioned here that the seizure of contraband materials here in this case has been produced and duly proved by the PW.4”. And as such non production of the same before PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6, caused no dent to prosecution version. It is to be noted here that it is the quality of evidence, rather than the quantity, that matters in the trial. And this being the position, the ratio laid in the case of Vijay Pandey (supra) so referred by Mr. Das, would not advance the case of the appellant. Mr. Das, however, submits that since PW-4 is the complainant and also the person who had done some investigation, including search and seizure and arrest, he cannot be relied upon. This submission, however, failed to impress this Court in as much as in view of the decision of a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120 , wherein it has been held that “merely because the complainant conducted the investigation, that would not be significant to cast doubt on the entire prosecution versions and to hold that the same makes the prosecution version vulnerable”. This being the position, there is no ground to disbelieve the otherwise clear and cogent version of PW-4. 21. It also appears from the record of the learned court below that the appellant has given evasive answer in her examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the NCB has rightly pointed this out during argument, and referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Veerendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 451, submits that the evasive answer goes against her. The submission of Mr. Keyal is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. And I find substance in the submission of Mr. The submission of Mr. Keyal is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. And I find substance in the submission of Mr. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the NCB. 22. The record of the learned court below, specially, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 reveals that all the formalities, prescribed in the Manual of the NCB, were followed during the investigation and also in respect of the witnesses and after the seizure of the contraband substance the same were kept in the Godown of the NCB on 14.06.2015 and it was sent for FSL examination within 72 hours on 16.06.2015 and as such, no illegality, appears to be committed by the investigating agency. 23. Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out some anomalies in the Panchnama which bears the FIR number, and the FIR was drawn up earlier in point of time and preceded by the registration of the FIR and referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamaljit Singh @ Papu vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 14 SCC 9 , Mr. Das submits that this anomaly casts serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and it cannot be said that the prosecution side has succeeded in establishing the case beyond all reasonable doubt. I have considered the submissions of Mr. M.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant and in view of aforesaid discussion and finding I find no merit in the same. 24. Thus, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the prosecution side could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, it transpires that the prosecution side has succeeded in establishing the charge under section 21(C) of the NDPS Act against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It is apparent that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances on the record and arrived at a reasoned finding. Indisputably, the quantity of contraband substance, recovered from the possession of the accused, is of commercial quantity. The learned court below has imposed minimum punishment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation. And having regards to the nature and gravity of the offence, specially the antecedent of the appellant, the sentence, so handed down, appears to be reasonable and justified and it warrants no interference of this court. 25. The learned court below has imposed minimum punishment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation. And having regards to the nature and gravity of the offence, specially the antecedent of the appellant, the sentence, so handed down, appears to be reasonable and justified and it warrants no interference of this court. 25. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Send down the record of the learned court below, with a copy of this judgment and order. The parties have to bear their own costs.