The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 702 held that provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act are not mandatory provisions and they are only directory. Violation of these provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. In the present case, I do not find any serious violation of these provisions. The prosecution adduced evidence to prove that these provisions have been substantially complied with and the Sessions Judge discussed these provisions in detail and accepted the prosecution case. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that even non-compliance of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and in the present case substantial compliance of these provisions has been made. Further, in the present case, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 clearly proved that the material objects seized from the appellant are opium and it was found to be positive on being tested. Furthermore, the samples have been prepared, sealed and
