( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and fine passed by learned Addtional Sessions Judge dated 12. 4. 1994.

( 2 ) MR. J. S. ATTRI, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that there was material contradiction in the statements of prosecution evidence. Secondly provisions of Section 52 and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (in short "ndps Act") were not followed. Thirdly the alleged independent witness was not brought in the witness box and the report of CFSL is defective.

( 3 ) ELABORATING his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that PW-7 has stated in his evidence that the accused was taken to Sant Nagar whereas PW-6 has stated that Shri Hori Lal, appellant, was brought to the Police Station. Another contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW-4 has narrated that raiding party consisted of six Police officials and one public witness whereas PW-6 has stated that they were five Police officials. Another contradiction has been pointed out is in relation to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding deposit of seized contraband which according to PW-1 was at 2. 45 A. M. and according to PW- 2 it was 2. 45 P. M. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses, there is no contradiction much less material contradiction in the statements of witnesses either regarding the number of persons, who constituted the raiding party or about the accused being brought to the Police Station. With regard to the timing as stated by PW-2 to be 2. 45 P. M. whereas PW-1 has stated time to be 2. 45 A. M. , from the totality of evidence brought on record, it is borne out that 2. 45 A. M. has been inadvertantly typed and it is on account of typing that this mistake has crept in. I do not see any infirmity with the finding of fact arriving at by the Trial Court keeping in view the deposition of all the witnesses of the prosecution. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of sub-Section (3) of Section 52 of the NDPS Act every person arrested and article seized under Sub-section (2) of Sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Act shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to Officer In-charge of the nearest Police Station. What Mr. Attri has contended, is that in this case the accused was not forwarded to the Officer In-charge of the Police Station and, therefore, there is non-compliance of Sub- section (3) of Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that Section 55 of the NDPS Act pre-supposes that SHO should be present at the spot where in the present case he never visited the spot. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has cited Gurcharan Singh @ Channi and anr. v. State 1993 (2) Crimes 229 and Rajesh v. State 1989 (1) Delhi Lawyer 359, in which it was held |-

"i, therefore, find it to be a case where even the factum of SHO putting his own seal is rendered dubious, apart from the fact that it would have been inconsequential, even if he had done so, in view of the earlier finding that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act postulate entirely different requirements, to the effect that the SHO himself gets parcels prepared, and sealed, and puts his own seal in the first instance and invariably, and it is only incidental that when another officer is allowed to take the parcels to the police station, then he may also be allowed to put his seal in addition. It has been found as a fact that this procedure was given a total go by in this case, and that there was clear contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 55 of the Act, when the whole procedure has been subverted by the investigating officer, and he exceeded his authority as given to him by sections 43 and 52 (3) of the Act. "

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned counsel for the State, has argued that the accuse