The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, along with the compliance with Section 42 and Section 50 of the Act.

M.R. Verma, J.:- Since all these three appeals have been preferred by the appellants (here-in-after referred to as the accused) against the judgment dated 23.2.2000 passed by the learned trial Judge in Sessions Trial No. 24-S/7 of 1999 whereby all the accused have been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of a period of three months each, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5.10.1999 telephonic secret information was received by A.S.P. Sunder Lai (PW-11) that charas is being transported in Maruti Esteem Car (Blue coloured No. CHO-IE-2764 which was coming towards Oachghat. This information was reduced by him into writing vide Ext. PW-5/A. He gave the direction to the S.H.O. Police Station, Solan where Ext. PW-5/A was recorded to send the information to the Superintendent of Police and thereafter proceed towards the spot where said car was expected to come. On reaching the spot, when the car arrived there, he formed a raiding party consisting of Jainarain (PW-1) and Ashwani Kumar Gupta (PW-2). The accused Manjit Singh was driving the car and the remaining accused were sitting therein. In the presence of the witnesses of the raiding party PW-11 gave the option to the accused persons whether they wanted to be searched by a Magistrate or by him vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. The accused consented for their search by PW-11. On personal search of the accused nothing incriminating was found on their person. Thereafter the said Car was also searched and one black coloured bag was found which contained a steel doloo kept in a plastic bag. Said doloo contained charas weighing 820 gms. After separating two samples of 25 gms each the samples and the remaining charas were separately sealed vide memo Ext.PW-1/B. A ruqua Ext.PW-6/A was then sent by PW-11 to the Officer Incharge, Police Station, Solan for registration of a case on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PW-9/A was recorded at the Police Station. The Car along with its documents and key was also taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW-2/B. The sealed parcels of the case property were handed over to the SHO (PW-9) who re- sealed the same. The samples of charas1 were got analysed and vide report Ext.PW-10/A given by the Chemical Examiner the sample were found to be that of a charas. On being satisfied of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act by the accused persons all of whom were traveling in the said Car, the Officer In charge, Police Station, Solan submitted a charge-sheet against them under Section 20 of the Act and a charge was accordingly framed against them by the learned trial Judge.

3. To prove the charge against accused persons prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.

4. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of the prosecution as a whole and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused however did not lead any evidence. Finally, they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, these appeals.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State, and have also gone through the records.

6. It was contended for the accused that this is a case where the police had the prior information, therefore, provisions of Section 42 of the Act ought to have been complied with, but were not complied with, therefore, the conviction of the accused is rendered unsustainable. To substantiate the contention our attention was drawn to the statement of PW-5 who has admitted in his cross examination that there was over-writing on receipt number of information Ext.PW-5/