IMPORTANT POINT
Section 42 NDPS Act mandates that where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J. - The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) and Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") on the allegations that on 29th February 1996 an, information was received that he was possessing and selling brown sugar in his residence. After compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act according to the prosecution the raid was conducted at the house of the appellant and during search, brown sugar weighing 3 1/2 Grams was found in his possession. It was seized and sealed in presence of the Panchas and the appellant was arrested. The charge under Section 20 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, on 8th July, 1996. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including Panch, PW. 1- Uday s/o Manohar Fase, and the Investigating Officer, P.W. 6 - Vinod s/o Ganpatrao Raut. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act stands proved against the appellant, who has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00.000/-. The appellant is in appeal before us.

2. At the outset we may note that though the charge states that the accused has "committed an offence punishable under Section 20 (1) (b) of N.D.P.S. Act", but Section 20 of the NDPS Act does not have any sub - section (1). That seems to be a typographical error and we would assume that the appellant was charged for offence punishment under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act, for which he has been ultimately convicted and sentenced. On this count further it deserves to be noticed that as per the evidence including the report of the Chemical Analyst, the appellant was found in possession of brown sugar which, from material on record, would clearly come within the definition of manufactured drug within the meaning of clause (xi) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act and, thus, punishable under Section 21 of the said Act. But for the view we have taken in the present case, it is not necessary to dwell any more on the present question or to consider reframing of the charge under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds, contravention of Section 42, Section 50, absence of proof of ownership and possession of the house from where according to the prosecution the appellant was apprehended with the contraband; absence of noticing weight of the contraband in the report of the Chemical Analyst and doubts on the sealing of the contraband.

4. On perusal of evidence on record, including the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, we find no substance in the halfhearted argument addressed to create doubt in the sealing. Likewise there is also no substance in the contention about the weight being not mentioned in the Report of the Chemical Analyst. A perusal of the Report Exhibit 35, when seen with Exhibits 31 and 32, makes it evident that the prosecution has amply proved that the entire brown sugar weighing 3 1/2 Grams was forwarded for chemical analysis. In the present case, the question of ownership or possession of the house from where the appellant was apprehended is of no consequence since the brown sugar was found from the person of the appellant. We also see no substance in the contention based on non - compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The thrust of the argument was that according to the P.W. 1, the appellant was asked, whether he wanted to be searched in presence of 'Tahsildar' and not 'Magistrate' which is the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act: What the learned Counsel however, misses is that P.W. 1 at the same time has also stated that Memorandum Exhibit P - 15 was prepared while making enquiry with the accused (appellant herein) whether he wanted to be s