VIJAY LAKSHMI,J. - (1.) As all these appeals relate to the same occurrence and all have been preferred against the same impugned judgment dated 22.6.2010, all are being decided by this common judgment. The appellants in these appeals have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Auraiya vide impugned judgment dated 22.6.2010 passed in S.T. No. 13 of 2007, for the offence under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act whereby sentencing each of them with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default to pay fine, each has to undergo further imprisonment of one year. Heard Sri Agni Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant Keshav in Criminal Appeal No. 5043 of 2010 and as Amicus Curiae for appellant Sarvesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1877 of 2014, Sri Ambrish Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for appellant Amar Bahadur in Criminal Appeal No. 5671 of 2011 and Sri Shanti Prakash Patel, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State in all the three appeals. Perused the record. Before dwelling upon the merit or otherwise of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate for the court to fully narrate the facts resulting in the conviction of the appellants. On 26.8.2007 at about 10.30 A.M., a secret information was received by Sub Inspector Satish Kumar Paliwal (P.W. 1), the Incharge Officer, Police Station Vidhuna, district Auraiya who was patrolling with police team on a government jeep near Ruruganj crossing in search of a wanted criminal. According to the secret information given by some informer, three persons (appellants) were going on a truck with illicit Charas towards Vidhuna through Auraiya and they could be caught red handed with a large quantity of Charas if the road is blocked. Believing on the truthfulness of such information P.W. 1 Satish Kumar Paliwal, immediately informed his senior officer namely S.O. Acchalda Sri V.K. Singh and S.O.G. Incharge Ram Naresh Singh by mobile phone about the secret information. Thereafter he instructed the concerned police check-posts for road blockade (Nakabandi) and necessary follow up actions. At about 11.00 A.M. the "Mukhbir" again informed about the number of the truck coming with the illicit Charas as UP 83 A 9351. It was also informed that the truck was covered by a light blue coloured chequered Tarpaulin and it had just crossed Nabilganj. The higher officers were again apprised about this information by P.W. 1, who alongwith his team of 11 or 12 police personnel, including S.O. Acchalda V.K. Singh and S.O.G. Incharge Ram Naresh Singh, chased the truck and stopped it near power house Acchalda at about 12.30 P.M. The police informer, after identifying the truck, secretly left. Meanwhile HCP Ram Avtar had also reached there. Thereafter, all the members of police team took search of each other among themselves so as to ascertain that they themselves were not carrying any such contraband and then they proceeded towards the truck. All the three appellants were found sitting in the truck who told their names to the police. The driver of the truck informed that his name is Keshav. Appellant Sarvesh informed that he is the owner of the truck, from whose possession a mobile phone and Rs. 2000/- in cash was recovered. The appellant Amar Bahadur informed that he is the second driver of the truck. When they were asked about the presence of illicit contraband in the truck, they informed that they were carrying 85 kgs. of Charas which they were bringing from Qasba Veerganj. They also informed about their separate shares in the Charas, according to which out of the total 85 kgs. of Charas, Sarvesh had 40 kgs., Keshav had 15 kgs. and Amar Bahadur had 30 kgs. of Charas as their respective shares. After confirmation of news of illicit Charas by the aforesaid confessional statement of the appellants, C.O. Vidhuna Sri Ajeet Kumar Sinha was informed on Mobile Phone No. 9415902666, who reached by his official jeep at the spot at about 1.15 P.M. Before him, the appellants, while confessing their guilt, took out the Charas kept in separate polythene bags from a secret window behind the seat of the driver and handed it over to him. Constable Narsingh was sent to arrange for a weighing scale, who brought it from Kasba Nabilganj. Upon being weighed, the total weight of Charas was found to be 85 kgs. The samples of 100 gms. of Charas from the share of each appellant, were separately sealed in a white cloth in presence of circle Officer. The remaining Charas was kept in separate plastic gunny bags and was sealed. At the time of arrest of the appellants, several persons including some media representatives, had gathered at the spot but when they were asked to be the witnesses, they did not agree and silently left the place. The truck was seized by the police. The recovery memo was prepared in four copies on which the signatures of the appellants and the witnesses were taken and each of the appellants was served with a separate copy of it. The arrest memo and inspection memos were also prepared on the spot. A first information report was lodged at P.S. Acchalda, district Auraiya at 2.45 P.M. on the same day i.e. on 26.8.2007. On the basis of the aforesaid report, three separate cases were registered against the appellants at Case Crime Nos. 135, 136 and 137 of 2007 under Section 18 / 20 N.D.P.S. Act. The matter was investigated, the statements of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, the samples of recovered Charas were sent to chemical examiner where those were found to be of 'Charas'. After concluding the the investigation, the police submitted 3 separate charge-sheets against each of the appellants before the court of sessions where the charge under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against all the accused-appellants on 1.3.2008. All of them denied from the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 5 witnesses in all. P.W. 1 is the first informant Satish Kumar Paliwal, S.O., Police Station Acchalda, P.W. 2 is Ajeet Kumar Singh, Circle Officer, Vidhuna, P.W. 3 is Constable Clerk Parashuram, the Malkhana In-charge, P.W. 4 is S.I. Suryakant Dwivedi, the 2nd Investigating Officer, and P.W. 5 is S.S.I. Ajay Kumar Singh, the 1st Investigating Officer. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution produced in court the relevant documentary evidence and the alleged contraband (Charas). After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which all of them denied from the truthfulness of prosecution case and stated that the police had lifted them from their homes No such occurrence had ever taken place and nothing had been recovered from their possession. The appellants also denied from the fact that any copy of recovery memo was provided to them by the police. In defence, one witness D.W. 1 Pramod Kumar was produced by the appellants. Some documents were also produced by them including the certificates issued by their Gram Pradhans in their favour and the Registration Certificate of the truck No. UP 83 A 9351 carrying the alleged contraband, seized by the police, to show that the alleged truck belonged to one Idarish Ali, resident of Shikohabad, district Firozabad. The learned trial court found the prosecution case worthy of credit and the statements of the witnesses trustworthy and reliable and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. The legality and correctness of the impugned judgment has been challenged in these appeals by learned counsel for the appellants on the following grounds :- 1. In this case there is violation of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act. The police neither took down the information in writing nor sent a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Chand Vs. State of Haryana; (2013) 2 SCC 502. 2. Mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have also not been complied with by the police as prior to search of the appellants, they were not informed about their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, hence the whole recovery and even the trial is vitiated. In this regard the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand; (2014) 5 SCC 345 has been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants. 3. As per recovery memo, 100 - 100 gms. of samples were taken out from the seized contraband (Charas) and were sealed but it has not been specified in the recovery memo as to whose seal was affixed on the sample packets. Signatures of accused appellants were not taken on the sample packets, therefore, the recovery is doubtful. 4. There are contradictions between the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. As per P.W. 3, the contraband which was deposited in Maalkhana was in 3 bundles as he has stated that 'TOTAL MAAL TEEN BUNDLE ME THA' whereas the P.W. 1 has stated that he had also deposited the packets of samples alongwith the seized Charas in Maalkhana meaning thereby that the total number of packets must have been six. 5. There is no documentary evidence like Maalkhana Register on record to support the oral evidence of P.W. 1 regarding deposit of sample packets in Maalkhana in safe custody. As the Maalkhana Register was not produced before the court, the recovery becomes doubtful as is held in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Sitanshu Shekhar Kanungo; JT 2002 (8) SC 292. 6. The evidence available on record shows that there was tampering with the samples as well as the seals which creates a doubt on the veracity of prosecution story. 7. The investigation of this case was conducted by an officer, subordinate to the first informant, therefore, it cannot be considered as a fair investigation. 8. As per the evidence led by the prosecution, the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Lab on 7.9.2007 through Constable Bhoop Singh and the same were received in Laboratory on 11.9.2007 i.e. after 4 days. It is not clear as to where those samples were kept for 3 days falling in between, as Constable Bhoop Singh has not been produced in the court by the prosecution to clarify the situation. 9. P.W. 1-Satish Kumar Paliwal has stated that on the sample packets, his seal was affixed but as per Laboratory report, sample packets bore the seal of 'UPP', therefore, it cannot be said that the samples were the same which were sealed by the police. In this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court rendered in Ayub Vs. State of Rajasthan; LAWSUIT (Raj.) 9. 10. As per the prosecution case, the samples were collected on 26.8.2007, however the FSL report shows that the samples were received by it on 11.9.2007 i.e. after 16 days. It has not been explained as to where and under whose custody the samples were kept in the meantime. 11. The trial court has totally ignored the defence version and has not mentioned even a single word about the statement of defence witness D.W. 1 - Pramod Kumar in the impugned judgment. 12. The trial court has also ignored the fact that the truck from which the Charas is said to have been recovered, belonged to one Idrish Ali, despite the fact that the copy of the registration certificate of the truck was filed by the defence to show that the police has left the real owner of the truck and his driver and has falsely implicated the appellants. 13. The punishment under N.D.P.S. Act , being very stringent it was necessary to strictly follow the procedures prescribed. As the prosecution has failed to comply with it, the trial and the entire proceedings are liable to be vitiated and the appeals deserve to be allowed. On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appeals be allowed. Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that all the appellants have been caught red handed with a huge quantity of Charas weighing 85 Kgs. which is 85 times more than its commercial quantity i.e. 1 kg., therefore, they have rightly been held guilty by the learned trial court. Learned A.G.A. has contended that the procedures prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act , including the procedures with regard to the search and seizure have been followed by the police team, therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable in the present case, moreso when the facts being entirely different from the facts of present case. Learned A.G.A. has contended that the impugned judgment has been passed in wake of the well settled legal position, hence there is no need to interfere in it and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. For the purpose of coming to a right conclusion in this appeal, it is necessary to have a bird's eye view on the statements of the witnesses produced from both sides. P.W. 1 S.I. Mr. S.K. Paliwal has stated that on 26.8.2007 he was posted as In-charge Inspector at Police Station Vidhuna. He, alongwith S.I. Shiv Swaroop, S.I. Sanjay Singh, Con. Mohd. Talib and Driver Vijay Bahadur was on patrol duty and was patrolling in Government Jeep No. UP 79 G 0015, when he received a secret information by a police informer (Mukhbir) that three persons, having illicit contraband (Charas) with them were coming in a truck from the side of Auraiya and upon road blockage (Nakabandi) they could be caught red handed. Believing on the aforesaid information, the witness P.W. 1 immediately informed S.O.G. In-charge Ram Naresh Singh, S.O. Acchalda V.K. Singh about the secret information through mobile phone. He also instructed the concerned police check-posts for blocking the roads (Nakabandi). At about 11.00 A.M. the Mukhbir again informed that the number of the truck carrying illicit Charas was UP 83 A 9351, it was covered by a light blue chequered Tarpaulin and it had just crossed Nebilganj. After receiving these details, P.W. 1, once again informed his higher officers about the aforesaid details and on their instructions, S.O. Acchalda V.K. Singh, Con. Mohd. Ahmed, Con. Man Singh, Con. Shakeel, Driver Lala Ram in Jeep No. UP 79 G 0014 and S.O.G. Incharge Brijesh Dubey, Con. Satya Prakash, Con. Dhirendra Singh, Con. Rahul Singh, Con. Girish Chandra in Tata Spacio Car No. UP 79 G 0002 chased the aforesaid truck and stopped it near Acchalda Power House at about 12.30 P.M. The police informer, after identifying the truck secretly went away. At that time HCP Ram Avtar had also reached there by his motorcycle. Thereafter, all the police personnel took search of each other so as to ascertain that they themselves were not carrying any contraband. P.W. 1 was searched by S.O. Acchalda B.K. Singh. Thereafter the truck was searched and the appellants were found sitting in the truck. On being inquired the driver of the truck stated that he was Keshav son of Pyare Lal, second appellant told his name as Sarvesh son of Shyam Bihari. He also informed that he was the owner of the truck and the third one informed that he was Amar Bahadur son of Mokam Singh resident of Makkhanpur and he was the second driver of the truck. All of them informed that they had 85 kgs. of Charas with them which they were bringing from Qasba Veerganj. They also informed that out of the total 85 kgs. of Charas, 40 kgs. belong to Sarvesh, 15 kgs. belong to Keshav and 30 kgs. belong to Amar Bahadur. Believing on their statements P.W. 1 immediately informed by mobile phone to C.O. Vidhuna Sri Ajeet Kumar Sinha on his Mobile No 9415902666, who reached on the spot by his Government Jeep No. UP 79 G 0005 alongwith driver Brijpal Singh at about 1.15 P.M. The appellants confessed their guilt before the C.O. Vidhuna and they themselves took out. Their respective shares of Charas from the truck after opening a secret window situated behind the seat of the driver. The Charas was found kept in polythene bags. Some pieces of Charas were round shaped and some were of the shape of a brick. All those were smelling like Charas. Con. Man Singh was sent to bring the weighing scale from the locality and when the recovered Charas was weighed, it was found to be of total 85 kgs. The weight of separate shares of appellants was found to 40 kgs, 15 kgs. and 30 kgs. respectively. P.W. 1 has further stated that 100 gms. Charas was taken out from the share of each appellant as sample and kept separately in sealed condition and the remaining Charas was kept in 3 separate plastic bags. The recovery memo was prepared by S.I. Sanjay Singh on the spot on the dictation of P.W. 1 and the signatures of the appellants were obtained on it. Several public witnesses had gathered on the spot but when they were asked for to be the witness, they silently left the place. The recovery memo was prepared in four copies, out of which three copies were given to the appellants. P.W. 1 has duly proved the recovery memo during trial which was marked as Ext. Ka. 1. P.W. 2 is Circle Officer Ajeet Kumar Sinha, who has stated that on 26.8.2007 he was posted as C.O. Vidhuna. At about 12.30 P.M., S.H.O., Police Station Vidhuna Satish Kumar Paliwal had given him the information on his mobile phone no. 9415902666 about the smuggling of Charas in Truck No. UP 83 K 9351. Receiving the information he reached on the spot at 1.15 P.M. P.W. 2 has further stated that the accused persons confessed and admitted to have illicit Charas with them. They themselves took out the Charas from a secret cavity made in the truck. P.W. 2 has further stated that Sarvesh informed that he had 40 kgs. of Charas, Amar Bahadur had 30 kgs. and Keshav had 15 kgs. of Charas. Thereafter this witness has stated almost the same facts as stated earlier by P.W. 1 and as mentioned in the recovery memo and there is no need to repeat the same. P.W. 3 is Constable Parshuram, who has prepared the check F.I.R. He has stated that on 26.8.2007 he was posted as Constable Clerk at P.S. Acchalda and had prepared the check F.I.R. of this case in his own hand-writing. He has identified his hand-writing and signature on the check F.I.R. which was marked as Ext. Ka. 4. P.W. 3 has also proved the carbon copy of the entries in General Diary which was marked as Ext. Ka. 5. P.W. 4 is S.I. Surya Kant Dwivedi, second I.O. of this case, who has submitted the chargesheet against the appellants after conclusion of the investigation. P.W. 5 is Ajay Kumar Singh who was posted as S.H.O. Airwa Katra on 27.8.2007 and was entrusted with the investigation of this case. He is the first Investigating Officer. Both the Investigating Officers of this case i.e. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have deposed about the normal and routine investigation proceedings. All these witnesses have been cross examined at length by learned defence counsel but nothing such has been elicited so as to caste a shadow of doubt on their testimony. Though all these witnesses are police officers/officials but they cannot be said to be interested witnesses because there is no allegation against any of them to have enmity with any of the appellants. Except some minor contradictions, which are natural in view of the fact that their statements have been recorded after about 3 years of the occurrence and with the passage of the time the memory fades, their statements as a whole, appear reliable, trustworthy and inspire confidence. The appellants have stated in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the police had falsely implicated them after lifting them from their homes but they have not stated a single word as to why the police targeted them to falsely implicate in this case. The one and only defence witness, produced by the appellants, during trial is D.W. 1 - Pramod Kumar, who has stated that he knows Keshav and Sarvesh. On 26.8.2007 at about 9.30 A.M. Keshav was sitting with him on his tea shop and they were drinking tea when S.H.O. Acchalda alongwith four policemen reached there and asked about Keshav. Keshav told his name and they took him with them. After sometime the police came to the shop alongwith Keshav. At that time the appellant Sarvesh was sitting with D.W. 1 at the shop. He was also asked his name and was taken to the police station. D.W. 1 has further stated that Keshav and Sarvesh often used to visit his shop. After one day he came to know that both of them were implicated in a case under N.D.P.S. Act . During cross-examination, D.W. 1 has stated that Keshav used to work as driver. However, he does not know whose vehicle he was driving. He has further stated that he has seen Keshav driving a bus. He has stated that he knows Sarvesh since last 10 years. He has never seen Sarvesh doing any work. He has stated that his tea shop is situated near bus stand. He has further stated that when the police took away Keshav from his shop, Sarvesh was not present at shop. After about 45 minutes, Sarvesh had reached there and after 15 minutes of reaching of Sarvesh to his shop, S.O. Saheb came again to his shop alongwith Keshav and arrested Sarvesh also. He has stated that no search was conducted before him at the time of arrest of Keshav and Sarvesh. The aforesaid statement of D.W. 1 appears unreliable due to the reason that as per his own statement, the police had arrested Keshav about one hour prior to arresting Sarvesh and the police had reached at his shop alongwith Keshav again and had arrested Sarvesh. There does not appear any reason with the police to take Keshav once again to the tea shop for arresting Sarvesh after one hour. Moreso, the statement of D.W. 1 that while arresting Keshav and Sarvesh the police team, neither took any search of them nor informed them about the reason for their arrest, appears unnatural and unreliable in wake of the fact that the place of arrest is a tea stall, where normally large number of public remains present. In the backdrop of the aforesaid evidence, now it appears expedient to see whether the mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure have been complied with by the police in this case ? If not, what is its effect. In so far as the compliance of Section 42 of N.D.P.S. is concerned, Section 42 provides for power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation to any such officer of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government or State Government including para-military forces or armed forces empowered in this behalf. It further provides that if such officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V of this Act, is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place it may between sunrise and sunset :- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. It is noteworthy that the search in this case has been conducted in presence of Circle Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Satrohan; (2008) 8 SCC 313 has held that : "when the search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer himself, the compliance of Section 42 is not necessary. if search is carried out in presence of a Gazetted Officer and under his supervision, provisions of Section 42 have no application." In a more recent case, reported as Shekhar Suman Verma Vs. Suiperintendent of NCB and another; 2016 Cr.L.J. 4182 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the law that if a gazetted officer himself has conducted the search and seizure of appellant, the compliance of Section 42 and Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is not necessary. As in the present case the search has been carried out in presence of Circle Officer who is a Gazetted Officer, therefore, there is no violation of section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act. In Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Haryana; 2010 (4) SCC 445, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that substantial compliance of Sections 42 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act is sufficient unless the accused can show that he was prejudiced thereby. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, has observed as under :- "With advancement of technology and availability of high speed exchange of information, some of the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act including Section 42 have to be read in the changed contest. Information sent by wireless is sufficient. No prejudice was shown to have been caused to accused on account of non reduction of secret information into writing and non sending of the same immediately thereafter to the higher officer. Information of arrest of appellant and seizure of contraband had been fully reported to the local police station on basis whereof F.I.R. was drawn. Thus, there was substantial compliance of Section 42 and Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act." In the present case there is sufficient reliable evidence to prove that the information to senior officers was sent by RT set and mobile phone by the informant. Thus, in wake of the above cited judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, it cannot be said that there was no compliance of Section 42 . A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana; (2009) 8 SCC 539 has held : "if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior." The purpose behind enacting the provisions of Section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act is that the empowered officer receiving information about the contraband liable for seizure is kept or is concealed in any building, conveyance of enclosed place, he should before entering into such place, take down the information in writing and should inform his superior officers about such information within 72 hours. Thus a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 42 , itself clearly shows that it is not applicable in case when the recovery is not made from any enclosed place building or conveyance. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its one more recent judgment delivered on 7.9.2016 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1020-1021 of 2009, Girish Raghunath Mehta Vs. Inspector of Customs and others, has held that : "where the recovery is from a public place, strict compliance by the Investigating Agency should not be required in an emergency situation so as to avoid misuse by drug peddlers." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited cases, denied to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and dismissed the appeals. In so far as the compliance of Section 57 is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment delivered on 28.11.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2016, Dalbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges while relying on its earlier judgment rendered in Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala (2001)6 SCC 692, has held that section 57 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory in nature but only directory, and unless it is demonstrated that non-compliance of it has caused prejudice to the accused persons and has resulted in failure of justice, these rules, which deal with the steps to be taken by the officers after making arrest or seizure, will not invalidate such arrest or seizure. In so far as the compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act in the present case is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that the appellants were not communicated by the police officer about their right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer whereas the accused must be made aware of the existence of such a right. Learned counsel has further contended that the evidence clearly shows that the appellants were jointly communicated about their option and a joint communication of the right under Section 50 of the Act to the accused would frustrate the very purpose of Section 50 and each of the accused must be individually informed about his search as has been held by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand; AIR 2014 SC 1384. The appellants cannot be given any benefit out of the aforesaid ruling of Parmanand's case due to well settled legal position that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act do not apply to any search or seizure where the article was not being carried on the person of the accused (State of Rajasthan Vs. Tara Singh; (2011) 11 SCC 559). In Yasihey Yobin v. Department of Customs; (2014) 13 SCC 344 the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that Section 50 is not attracted when there is no inextricable communication between search of a person and packet. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court the words 'any person' used in Section 50 of the Act naturally mean a human being or living individual unit and not an artificial person. It would not bring within its ambit any packets, containers, briefcase or any such other article which can be given a separate name and are identifiable as such and they cannot even remotely to be treated to be a body part of human being. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Vs. State of M.P. (2007)1 SCC 450 has held that if a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act makes a raid or arrest a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and when search is completed, at that stage, Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirement thereunder would not arise. Though almost all the witnesses have admitted that no written consent was taken from the accused before taking search, it does not make any difference and only on this basis the trial cannot be vitiated. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab; AIR 2011 SC 964, the Hon'ble Apex court has held : "......... Section 50 can be invoked only in cases where the drug/narcotic/NDPS substance is recovered as a consequence of the body search of the accused. In case, the recovery of the narcotic is made from a container being carried by the individual, the provisions of Section 50 would not be attracted........ ......... Section 50 is applicable only where search of a person is involved and said section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of a person is involved. Thus search and recovery from a bag, brief case, container, etc. does not come within the ambit of Section 50 of the Act......." Now reverting back to the facts of the present case, the Charas has been recovered from the polythene bags kept in the secret chamber of the truck and not from the persons of the appellants, therefore, Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is not attracted. In so far as the argument regarding the sanctity of samples and seal is concerned, a careful perusal of the deposition of witnesses shows that the contraband recovered from the possession of the appellants was produced in the court during examination of P.W. 1 in the sealed position. The sealed bundle was opened before the court and the witness P.W. 1 identified the contraband recovered from the possession of appellant Keshav which was marked as material Ext. 1. This witness has also identified the sample and seal put on the Charas recovered form the possession of the appellant Keshav with was marked as material Ex. 2. Thereafter the contraband recovered from the possession of appellant Sarvesh was opened before the trial court and P.W. 1 identified the contraband and the seal which were marked as material Exts. 3 and 4 respectively. The Charas recovered from the possession of Amar Bahadur was also produced in a sealed bundle before the court which were identified by P.W. 1 and both were marked as material Exts. 5 and 6. Relevant part of examination of P.W. 1 is reproduced below :- ...[VERNACULER TEXT OMITTED]... Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there was any tampering in the seal affixed on the contraband (Charas). The appellants themselves have taken out the Charas from a secret place in Truck, therefore, it is clearly evident that Charas was in their conscious possession. The appellants were not travelling in any public transport vehicle and the secret chamber constructed in the truck was only within the knowledge of the appellants, therefore, the court can presume that they had a culpable mental state, the Charas being in their conscious possession. Under these circumstances, Section 35 of N.D.P.S. Act comes into play which creates a presumption of culpable mental state. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dehal Singh Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh; 2011 (72) ACC 661 has held that : "the person who claims that he was not in conscious possession has to establish by him. The presumption of conscious possession is further available under Section 50 of the Act which provides that the accused may be presumed to have committed offence unless he accounts for satisfactorily possession of the contraband." In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh; 2003(7) SCC 465; the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles." In the present case the statements of appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that none of them has stated that they had no knowledge that any such Charas was kept in a secret chamber in the truck, therefore, in absence of any such plea of the appellants before the trial court, it cannot be said that the appellants had rebutted the presumption. The Hon'ble Apex court in its recent judgment rendered in Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2016 Cri. L.J. 154 has held as under: "In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no plea has been taken that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the contraband. The appellant has only pleaded that he being falsely implicated and that a false case has been foisted against him in the police station. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had not stated anything as to why would the police foist the false case against the appellant. It is to be noted that huge quantity of poppy straw was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Admittedly, the police officials had no previous enmity with the appellant. It is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that he is being falsely implicated as it is highly improbable that such a huge quantity has been arranged by the police officials in order to falsely implicate the appellant." In the aforesaid Baldev Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court has further observed as under:- "Once the physical possession of the contraband by the accused has been proved, Section 35 of the NDPS Act comes into play and the burden shifts on the appellant-accused to prove that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 35 of the NDPS Act reads as under:- 35. Presumption of culpable mental state.--(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Explanation.--In this section "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. (2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability. Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 35 expanding the meaning of ''culpable mental state' provides that ''culpable mental state' includes intention, knowledge of a fact and believing or reason to believe a fact. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 provides that for the purpose of Section 35 , a fact is said to be proved only when the Court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of the probability. Once the possession of the contraband by the accused has been established, it is for the accused to discharge the onus of proof that he was not in conscious possession. Burden of proof cast on the accused under Section 35 of the NDPS Act can be discharged through different modes. One of such modes is that the accused can rely on the materials available in the prosecution case raising doubts about the prosecution case. The accused may also adduce other evidence when he is called upon to enter on his defence. If the circumstances appearing in the prosecution case give reasonable assurance to the Court that the accused could not have had the knowledge of the required intention, the burden cast on him under Section 35 of the NDPS Act would stand discharged even if the accused had not adduced any other evidence of his own when he is called upon to enter on his defence." In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat , AIR 2000 SC 821, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "where an accused admits that narcotic drugs were recovered from bags that were found in his possession at the time of his apprehension, in terms of Section 35 of NDPS Act the burden of proof is then upon him to prove that he had no knowledge that the bags contained such a substance.' So far as the argument with regard to interestedness of the witnesses is concerned, no doubt all the prosecution witnesses in this case are members of police force, but it is settled law that the statements of police officials are not to discard only on this ground alone. In fact, nothing has been put to any of the police witnesses to elicit that he was in anyway personally interested to get the appellant convicted. In Tahir v. State (Delhi ), (1996) 3 SCC 338, dealing with a similar question, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." In Baldev Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court has observed that : "There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness." The amount of Charas recovered from the possession of the appellants is 85 times more than its commercial quantity. The appellants were in conscious possession of Charas and all of them have been caught red handed with the contraband. The amount of the recovered contraband Charas, which is a very expensive item, is so huge that it negates even the remotest possibility of the same being planted by the police. Further more no evidence with regard to bias or malice against the Investigating Agency has been adduced and no reason has been disclosed by any of the appellants for their false implication. All these facts properly and sufficiently establish the prosecution case against the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, only on the ground of a trivial issue of non production of Maalkhana Register before the court, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded. Non production of Maalkhana Register is only a lacuna on the part of the prosecuting agency and the entire trial and the proceedings cannot stand vitiated only on this ground. Keeping in view all the facts and the circumstances of the case in the light of relevant legal provisions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases cited above, this court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court. The learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. The appeals filed by them are devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. All the accused are in jail. They shall remain in jail and shall serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded to them by the trial court. Let the record be sent back to the trial court along with a copy of this judgment without any delay for taking necessary action. The certified copy of this judgment be immediately provided to learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Agni Pal Singh, Advocate, who has argued as amicus curie on behalf of appellant Sarvesh, shall be paid Rs. 11,000/- as fee for efficiently assisting this court. ;