HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.2603 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/2nd accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 8(c )/20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. Questioning the same, the 2nd accused filed this appeal. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 09.01.2003 at about 06.30 hours A-1 and A-2 were arrested on Railway plat form of Visakhapatnam Railway Station while in possession of ganja in their baggages. A-1 was possessing two suit cases whereas A-2 was having two zip bags. As per the prosecution case, bags of A-2 (MOs 11 and 12) contained 16 kgs and 5 kgs of ganja respectively totallying 21 kgs. During trial of the case in the lower Court, A-1 died and the case against him stood abated. Therefore A-2 alone was tried by the lower Court. Plea of A-2 was one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found her guilty of the charge. 3. In this appeal it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that conviction of A-2 is vitiated inasmuch as there was no compliance of mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act. Section 42 of the Act has no application to this case since the contraband in this case was not searched and seized “in any building, conveyance or enclosed place”. As per evidence of PWs 1 and 2, A-2 was caught with possession of 2 bags containing ganja on railway platform which is an open place. Section 42 is applicable only in case of entry, search seizure and arrest in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. Railway platform of Visakhapatnam railway station is a public place, in respect of which Section 43 of the Act may be applicable. But, there is no argument in this case that Section 43 of the Act is not complied with. 4. Secondly, Section 50 of the Act is applicable in the case of personal search. In this case there was no personal search of A-2. There was only baggage search, which baggages were in possession of A-2. In any event, search of the bags of A-2 was by PW.2 Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam who is a Gazetted Officer by himself. Secondly, the search was made in the presence of PW.1 who is again a Gazetted Station Manager of Visakhapatnam Railway Station. Therefore, even if it is assumed that Section 50 of the Act is applicable in this case, there is compliance of the said requirement herein. 5. There cannot be any dispute that Section 57 of the Act is not a mandatory provision, but is only a directory one. Therefore, irrespective of non-compliance of the requirements under Section 57 of the Act, prosecution of A-2 is not in any way vitiated. 6. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is discrepancy in evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to the colour of bags. In my opinion, the discrepancies on minor aspects of the case, cannot falsify their evidence. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 proved that ganja in MOs 11 and 12 bags was seized while the bags were in possession of A-2 under the cover of Ex.P.1-mediators report on 09.01.2003. Ex.P.1-mediators report also contain statement of A-2 in verbatim. The said statement of A-2 is relevant piece of evidence in this case, in view of Section 53A of the Act. It shows that at the instance of four persons who were doing ganja business, she and A-1 were carrying suit cases and bags containing ganja for remuneration of Rs.1,000/- each. The said statement further reinforces that ganja in MOs 11 and 12 bags was being transported by A-2 through train. 7. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the police did not apprehend the main persons who were doing ganja business and who entrusted the ganja to the accused for transport. Simply because the alleged traders of ganja could not be apprehended and slipped away, it is no ground for letting off A-2 also in this case. 8. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that in any event since A-2 was only a carrier of ganja for paltry remuneration of Rs.1,000/-, lenient view may be taken by imposing sentence of imprisonment equivalent to the period of 20 days imprisonment which she already had undergone during investigation after her arrest. In my opinion, the lower Court was kind enough in bringing the case under non- commercial quantity from commercial quantity and imposing very lenient sentence of imprisonment of three months. I do not find any valid reasons to be further lenient towards the appellant in this appeal. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 23rd September, 2011 PNV