Judgment

1. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd July 2008, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Crl. Appeal No. 628-SB of 1997, dismissing the appeal of the appellant which had been filed by the appellant against his conviction by the learned Special Judge, Sangrur, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3, Mr. Malkiat Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police Station, Bhawanigarh, was said to have been on patrol duty when a secret information was received by him that the appellant was dealing with Poppy Husk from his residence. On receipt of the said information the said Malkiat Singh, along with Head Constable Gurmail Singh, Constable Gamdoor Singh, Head Constable, Jagga Ram, PHG Rajinder Singh and SPO Hari Singh, went to the house of the appellant and upon questioning him they came to learn that he had concealed certain amount of contraband. Based on the said part of the information which was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a recovery was made of four bags of Poppy Husk. At the time of seizure of the said contraband, no samples were taken by P.W.3. The same was seized by Mr. Malkiat Singh, who also sealed the same with his seal, and thereafter, the four bags were taken to the Police Station where the Station House Officer, Gurmail Singh, broke open the seals and mixed the contents of the four bags together, and took the samples therefrom and resealed the bags with his seal. At that point of time, the poppy Husk was weighed and found to be 150 kilograms Of Poppy Husk in all. A charge was framed against the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, and, ultimately, he was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two and a half years.

2. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the appellant moved the High Court, which agreed with the findings of the Trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said order of dismissal that the instant Special Leave petition was filed, and this appeal arises therefrom.

3. Mr. Sahil Bali, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that in view of what has been stated hereinabove by the Investigating Authorities, it would be evident that the provisions of Section 42 of the aforesaid Act had not been complied with, and that, as has been held in several cases by this Court, since the provisions of the Act are very stringent they have to be construed very strictly also. Mr. Bali urged that by not taking samples at the initial time of seizure, P.W.3, Malkiat Singh had committed an error which could not have been rectified in the manner done by the Station House Officer (P.W.2.). He also urged that since the information received by PW-3, Mr. Malkiat Singh, has not been reduced into writing and forwarded to his Senior Officer, the seizure also stands vitiated under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

4. It was lastly contended by Mr. Bali that even Roqa, which was subsequently sent could not wipe out the illegalities with regard to the collection of samples and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant was liable to be set aside.

5. On behalf of the State of Punjab, Mr. Atul Sahi, learned advocate, appearing with Mr. Sud, submitted that there had been substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of the aforesaid Act having particular regard to the fact that the secret information was received by Mr. Malkiat Singh when he was on patrol duty, and, therefore, had no opportunity to write down such information in writing and send the same to his Superior Officer prior to raiding of the appellant's premises. It was urged that once the seizure had been effected, the evidence was recorded in writing, and, thereafter, sent to the Superior Officer.

6. As to the legality of mixing of the samples in th