Judgment : (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.) 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, appellants Mayur Deshle @ Manya and Prakash Beldar @ Prakash Mohite herein have preferred these criminal appeals challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Kanker (C.G.), in Special (NDPS Act) Criminal Case No. 9 of 2018 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 R.I. for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. Since the facts and evidence as also the question of law involved in both the appeals are similar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In this case, it is alleged that on 28.12.2017 the accused appellants were found illegally transporting 124 Kgs. & 318 grams of narcotic substance (ganja) in 61 packets. . 3. The case of prosecution is that on 28.12.2017 Sub-Inspector Purushottam Kurre of Police station Kanker was instructed by Senior Officers to conduct MCP (Model Code of Criminal Procedure) proceedings. Sub-Inspector Vikrant Som, Assistant Sub-Inspector Sahu Head Constable Nos.123, 146 and Constable Nos. 44, 645, 317 were conducting MCP proceedings at Raza Fuels Pathari NH-30. At around 12.00 PM, a white Scorpio bearing Regn. No. MH-19-BJ/9499 coming from Jagdalpur was intercepted for checking and the inmates of the vehicle were questioned. On suspecting that there is Ganja in vehicle, a Panchnama was prepared and a duty certificate was issued to Constable Sachin Shori and he was sent to the SDO(P) Office to give information. On being instructed by the SDOP over mobile to take action, witnesses Dilip Verma and Govind Diwan were given notice to appear at the vehicle parking space of Raza Fuels. Then the accused were given notice regarding search either by Police or by a gazetted officer, on which, the accused gave their consent to be searched by the police. Before that, the police staff and seizure witnesses Dilip Verma (P.W.2) and Govind Diwan (P.W.1) were searched by accused, on which, no suspicious material was found from them in the said search. Before that, the police staff and seizure witnesses Dilip Verma (P.W.2) and Govind Diwan (P.W.1) were searched by accused, on which, no suspicious material was found from them in the said search. Thereafter, the accused were personally searched in front of the witnesses and during search, an Aadhar card, a mobile, a purse containing Rs.500/- along-with a driving license were found from accused Mayur and an Aadhar Card, two mobiles, a purse containing Rs.1000/- were found from accused Prakash, which were seized. Thereafter, when the offending vehicle was searched 61 packets of narcotic substance i.e., ganja were found in the dicky of the vehicle and the accused were found to be illegally transporting it. 4. The further case of prosecution is that in the presence of witnesses, accused Mayur Deshale and Prakash were served notice under section 91 Cr.P.C., demanding to produce valid documents for carrying ganja in the said vehicle, on which, the accused did not produce any documents. The said offending vehicle was found in the possession of accused Mayur Deshale and Prakash. A recovery Panchnama of 61 packets of ganja was prepared. Notice was served to the weigher Sunil Patel (P.W.3) through constable Sachin Shori for weighing the said ganja. When the weigher Sunil Patel came at the scene of incident with his electronic weighing scale, a panchnama was prepared after physically verifying his electronic weighing scale. Further, a panchnama of sample seal was prepared for sealing the seized ganja and thereafter another Panchnama was prepared by writing letters SI MAVS in English on the seal of samples. Total 61 packets of narcotic substance were recovered, which were marked by writing serial numbers from 01 to 61 over the packets and were weighed at the scene of incident by weigher Sunil Patel (P.W. 3 ) and the total weight of ganja kept in Packets nos.01 to 61 was found to be 124 Kgs 318 grams, for which, a weighing Panchnama was prepared. 5. The further case of prosecution is that from 61 packets recovered, two sample packets of 50 grams each were taken out and after weighing it kept in sealed packets and marked from A-1 to A-122 and thus a total of 122 sample packets of ganja weighing 6.100 were sealed and a sample seal Panchnama was prepared for the said 122 packets in front of panch-witnesses. After taking out 2 packets of 50 grams each from each of total 61 packets of seized ganja, all the remaining quantity of ganja was mixed for which a Samaras Panchnama was prepared and after testing the said ganja by rubbing, smelling and burning it, the same was found to be narcotic ganja, regarding which, an identification Panchnama was prepared. The total net weight of Ganja was found to be 115.798 kgs., when weighed by Sunil Patel, the weigher (P.W.3). The said Ganja was filled in three separate sacks, Sack No.01 contained 41.100 kgs, Sack No.2 contained 44.200 kgs, Sack No.3 contained 30.498 Kgs. and sealed on the spot, for which a Panchnama was prepared. After taking out 61 packets of ganja and samples, the empty polythene covers (Panniya) were weighed by weigher Sunil Patel and its weight was found to be 2.420 Kgs which were filled in a separate plastic sack and sealed, for which, a Panchnama was prepared. 6. It is also the case of prosecution that two samples of 50-50 grams were taken out from each of the 61 packets of ganja seized and those 122 sample packets were kept in a separate plastic bag and sealed, and a Panchnama was prepared after marking the sample seal. 7. The insurance papers along with other documents of the offending vehicle in which Ganja was transported and the license of accused Mayur Deshle were seized from him. The map of place of incident was prepared and the Dehati Nalishi was recorded by the police about the entire action taken by them. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested. 8. It is also the prosecution case that the entire seized material and the accused were brought to the Kanker Police station and the material so seized was handed over to the Head Constable Malkhana Mohrir. A report of the entire proceeding was sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer Kanker u/s 57 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, the Asst. Sub-Inspector Sharda Yadav registered the FIR in P.S. Kanker against the accused in Crime No.452/2017 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The samples of seized material were sent to the FSL through S.P. North Bastar for chemical testing and according to report of FSL, the seized narcotic substance was found to be Ganja. Sub-Inspector Sharda Yadav registered the FIR in P.S. Kanker against the accused in Crime No.452/2017 under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The samples of seized material were sent to the FSL through S.P. North Bastar for chemical testing and according to report of FSL, the seized narcotic substance was found to be Ganja. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 13 witnesses and exhibited 56 documents. The statements of the appellants were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the guilt and pleaded false implication. However, the appellants in support of their defence have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 10. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by impugned judgment, proceeded to convict the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred. 11. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence u/s 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the panch-witnesses namely Govind Diwan (P.W.1) and Dilip Kumar Verma (P.W.2)) have not supported the prosecution case and even the weigher of contraband ganja namely Sunil Kumar Patel (P.W.3) has denied to have weighed the seized Ganja. He further vehemently argued that the provisions contained u/s 52-A of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and as such, appellants herein deserve to be acquitted of the charge. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellants may also be reduced suitably or the present appeal may be allowed in full or in part. 12. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that though the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, but the Investigating Officer i.e., Purushottam Kurre (P.W.11) has proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt and, therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be vitiated. He further submits that though the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, but the Investigating Officer i.e., Purushottam Kurre (P.W.11) has proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt and, therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be vitiated. Learned State counsel also submits that the provisions contained u/ss 42, 50 & 52-A of the NDPS Act have satisfactorily been complied with by the prosecution in the present case. As such, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellants is well merited and, therefore, present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 14. In the case on hand, on the date of offence i.e. 28.12.2017, illegal contraband i.e. Ganja was recovered and seized from the possession of the appellants who were occupants of the offending vehicle vide seizure Panchnama (Ex.P-7) and seizure memo Ex.P-17 in presence of independent witnesses P.W.1 Govind Diwan and P.W.2 Dilip Kumar Verma. However, both the said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. But, Investigating Officer, namely, Purushottam Kurre (P.W.11) has duly proved the seizure of Ganja from the appellant vide Ex.P-7 & P-17. In this regard, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala , (2003) 8 SCC 726 held that mere fact that a Panch witness did not support the prosecution case by itself would not make the prosecution case any less acceptable, if otherwise the court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that such seizure was genuinely made and observed in Para-07 as under: “7. Learned counsel then contended that in view of the fact that the Panch witness to the seizure has not supported the prosecution case, the seizure cannot be accepted. We have repeatedly held that the mere fact that a Panch witness does not support the prosecution case by itself would not make the prosecution case any less acceptable if otherwise the court is satisfied from the material on record and from the evidence of the seizing authority that such seizure was genuinely made. In the instant case also we are satisfied that from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 the seizure has been proved by the prosecution. In the instant case also we are satisfied that from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 the seizure has been proved by the prosecution. Therefore, this argument also fails.” 15.The NDPS Act is a complete Code in itself. Once the procedure enumerated in Sections 42, 43, 49 & 50 is scrupulously followed, it was for the accused, from whose possession the substance is recovered, to explain how he came into possession of the same. It has also been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 10SCC 120 that it is not always necessary to corroborate the testimony of police officials, through the testimony of independent witnesses. 16.In the matter of Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab , (2010) 09 SCC 608 it has been held that lack of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. By adopting same analogy, it has further been held in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2020) 09 SCC 627 that the independent witnesses turning hostile, cannot be a ground for acquittal under the NDPS Act. 17.As such, from above analysis on the point, it is vividly clear that merely because seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the entire prosecution’s case stands vitiated. More particularly, in the present case, Investigating Officer (PW-11) has duly proved and supported recovery and seizure of Ganja from the appellants vide seizure Panchnama (Ex.P-7) and seizure memo (Ex.P-17). The FSL report (Ex.P-56) also shows that Ganja is found in samples/Articles A-1 to A-122 which were taken from the contraband seized from the appellants on the spot. Therefore, we do not see any good ground to disbelieve the fact of recovery and seizure of Ganja from the appellant on the date and time of the offence and, as such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard, is liable to be and the same is hereby affirmed. We hereby hold accordingly. 18. Therefore, we do not see any good ground to disbelieve the fact of recovery and seizure of Ganja from the appellant on the date and time of the offence and, as such, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard, is liable to be and the same is hereby affirmed. We hereby hold accordingly. 18. Learned counsels for the appellants contend that with respect to marking on the sealed samples, there exists contradictions in the statement of I.O. Purushottam Kurre (P.W.11) and the Malkhana incharge Sukhram Dhruv (P.W.7) who was head-constable for the reason that the I.O. (P.W.11) states that on the said seal SI MAVS was marked in english whereas the Malkhana Incharge (P.W.7) states at para 5 that the material was handed over to him by Sub-Inspector Kurre in 3 plastic bags which had the seal of “P.S. Kanker” and that apart, no mark of any kind was found on the said bags. P.W.7 further states that 122 sample packets which he had received from Sub-Inspector had the seal of “P.S. Kanker” and except that, there was no mark of any kind on such packets. Therefore, there exists material contradictions with respect to markings on the sealed samples and there was non-compliance of section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 19. In this regard, a perusal of FSL report (Ex.P-56) shows that one sealed exhibit relating to the subject matter was received in their office on 30.12.2017 which was found marked as ‘A’ and the seal found on it was found similar to the sample seal on which the english letters SI MAVS & PS KKR DT KKR were marked. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narcotic Control Board Vs. Kashif , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848 held that any lapse in compliance of section 52-A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The court will have to consider other circumstances and other primary evidence collected during course of investigation as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s 54 of the NDPS Act. 21. The court will have to consider other circumstances and other primary evidence collected during course of investigation as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s 54 of the NDPS Act. 21. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted which need not to be interfered with by this Court for the reason that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the same is hereby maintained. 22. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Budhiyarin Bai vs. The State of Chhattisgarh , passed in CRA No. 1218/2022 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4935/2022), wherein the conviction of the accused-appellant has been upheld, however, considering the old age of the accused (therein), who was a poor illiterate lady, the sentence has been reduced from 15 years of rigorous imprisonment to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, in the present case, the sentence of the appellants herein for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act may also be reduced. 23. In the instant case, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- each for the offence punishable Under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of NDPS Act, whereas the minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment has been prescribed for the aforesaid offence. The factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment have been prescribed Under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, 1985 which are as follows:- “32B. 1,50,000/- each for the offence punishable Under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of NDPS Act, whereas the minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment has been prescribed for the aforesaid offence. The factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment have been prescribed Under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, 1985 which are as follows:- “32B. Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment .- Where a minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine is prescribed for any offence committed under this Act, the Court may, in addition to such factors as it may deem fit, take into account the following factors for imposing a punishment higher than the minimum term of imprisonment or amount of fine, namely:- (a) the use or threat of use of violence or arms by the offender; (b) the fact that the offender holds a public office and that he has taken advantage of that office in committing the offence; (c) the fact that the minors are affected by the offence or the minors are used for the commission of an offence; (d) the fact that the offence is committed in an educational institution or social service facility or in the immediate vicinity of such institution or faculty or in other place to which school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities.; (e) the fact that the offender belongs to organised international or any other criminal group which is involved in the commission of the offences; and (f) the fact that the offender is involved in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of the offence.” 24. As such, in view of discussion made here-in-above, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Budhiyarin Bai (supra) and further considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act and also considering facts that the appellants have no criminal antecedents, appellant Mayur Deshle is an agriculturist by profession and appellant Prakash is an illiterate labour and they are facing lis since 2018 and further looking to their poor economic status, while affirming the conviction of appellants for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to reduce their sentence from 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment, to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and further reduce the fine of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed by the trial Court to Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo additional RI for six months instead of RI for 3 years as imposed by the trial Court. It is ordered accordingly. 25. Consequently, this criminal appeal is party allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 26. Let a certified copy of this order along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are languishing for information and necessary action, if any.