A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA, J.

1. First accused of a criminal case bearing Spl. Case No. 1 of 2011, which was pending on the file of the Court of District and Sessions/Special Judge, Yadgiri, has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr. P.C. Accused has been found guilty of offence under Section 8 of N.D.P.S. Act punishable under Section 20 of the said Act, 1995. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 Lakh vide judgment dated 25.07.2011. The conviction judgment dated 22.07.2011 and sentence of imprisonment on 25.07.2011, are called in question before this Court.

2. The facts leading to the following of this case are as follows:

On receipt of a credible information on 11.10.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., PW.1 the Excise Inspector, Shahapur together with Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Gulbarga and his staff and two panchas searched the house of accused No. 2/Mahammedsab situated at Vidya Nagar, Shahapur. The first accused was stated to be residing in the house of second accused at the time of the said raid. Accused No. 1 was very much present in the house and on search of his house, he was found to be in possession of 4 plastic bag containing in all 13 Kgs. of Ganja. One bag contained of 4 Kgs. of ganja and remaining 3 bags contained 3 Kgs. of Ganja each and they were weighed with the help of a scale. The Excise Inspector seized the above incriminating substance under a mahazar in the presence of independent panchas and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. His two staff took out 100 Gms of ganja each from the 4 bags and pasted a chit containing their signatures and signatures of panchas on the four packets separately.

3. Thereafter the accused was arrested and brought to the police station and on the basis of his report a case was registered a case in Crime No. 1 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 25 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Accused No. 2 is said to be the owner of the house.

4. The Excise Inspector sent the seized sample for chemical examination to Bangalore and thereafter PW.4 Anilkumar took over further investigation of the case and obtained the records of the house in which the first accused was residing. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against both the accused.

5. Charges were leveled against the accused on 23.03.2011 they had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all six witnesses inclusive of PW6 the Gazetted officer. PW.2/Ibrahim and PW.3/Ramesh are stated to be the independent panchas and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PWs.4, 5 and 6 have supported the case of the prosecution. In all 7 Exhibits have been got marked inclusive of one search warrant. Ex.P1 said to have been prepared in the house of accused No. 2. In all 12 material objects have been got marked. The defence of the accused is one of total denial of the allegations leveled against them.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned HCGP for the respondent at length. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is inherent inconsistency between the version of PWs.1, 4 and 6 and that several mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with. He has argued that there was inordinate delay in sending the samples to the FSL and the reduction in the quantity of the ganja is not explained in any manner. He has further argued that no paper containing the sample seal of the investigating officer, which was allegedly affixed on the four bags, was sent to the FSL. He has relied the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. Learned Government Pleader has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground of substantial compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42 and 50 of NDPS Act has been done and that there is