1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge [under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")], Sidhi in Special Case No.259/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted under section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer RI for one month. She was tried on the charge of being found in an illegal possession of I Kg and 100 grams of ganja that is cannabis/hemp within the meaning of section 2(iii)(b) of the Act.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.2.2007 at about 4:20 p.m., a credible information was received at Kotwali Sidhi to the effect that the appellant was indulged in sale of ganja in her house only. Accordingly, Sub-Inspector R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) conducted a raid at the house of the appellant. The raiding party included woman constable Saroj Rawat (PW5). After apprising the appellant of her legal right under which she could require presence of a senior officer, her house was searched by joining panch witnesses Kamta Prasad (PW 1) and Ramvilas Tomar (PW 6). During the search, a gunny bag containing 1 Kg and 100 grams of ganja was recovered. The contraband was duly seized. Two samples of 50 gms. each were drawn. One of the samples was forwarded to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. Corresponding report (Ex.P-31) indicated that the sample contained ganja. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was put up before the Special Court.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty. However, in the examination, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was asserted that she was falsely implicated at the instance of one Babulal Bhujwa who immediately after death of her husband wanted to grab her house.

4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including S.1. R.K. Dwivedi (PW9), woman constable Saroj Rawat (PW5) and the panch witnesses. The defence was sought to be substantiated by Siyabai (DW 1), an inhabitant of same locality.

5. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Special Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced her as indicated hereinabove.

6. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been assailed on the various grounds. However, learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on non-compliance of mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50(4) of the Act in the alleged search and seizure of the contraband and the inconsistencies in the statements of Detecting Officer R.K. Dwivedi (PW9) and other witnesses thereto. But, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, contended that the impugned conviction was fully justified.

7. At the outset, it may be observed that there was no necessity of following the procedure prescribed under section 50 of the Act, as it was a search of the premises and not that of a person. In this view of the matter, the contention that search of the house in exclusive possession of the appellant ought to have been carried by woman constable Saroj Rawat (PW5) only is apparently misconceived.

8. Coming to the question of compliance with sub-section (2) of section 42 of the Act, it would be seen that the immediate official superior viz. Deputy S.P., Sidhi was, admittedly, out of headquarters. Moreover, the acknowledgment (Ex.P-11A) given on his behalf by constable Mahendra Pratap Singh (PW2) contained the Crime No.100/07 that could be ascertained only after recording of the FIR (Ex.P-29) at about 7:00 p.m. whereas according to Mahendra Pratap, the envelope containing the covering letter and the copy of relevant entry of the Roznamcha was received by him at 5:00 p.m. Thus, the acknowledgment (Ex.P-11A), being a post-timed document, was indicative of the fact that the