Judgment

Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and Section 66(1) (b) and 83 of the Bombay Prohibition Act as, they were found in possession of charas weighing 7 kgs. and 419 grams without any licence or permit.

2. Various contentions regarding non-observance of mandatory require­ments of different provisions of the NDPS Act were raised before the trial Court but it found no substance in them and held that all those provisions were complied with in this case. The trial Court also found that the prosecution evidence could safely be relied upon eventhough there was some inconsistency in the evidence regarding the time at which the Panch witnesses were called. P.S.I. Chavda and the constable accompanying him had stated before the Court that the Panch witnesses were called before they had stopped the appellants. According to the Panch witnesses they were called thereafter. The Panchnama clearly states that the Panchas were called after P.S.I. Chavda had stopped the appellants while they were proceeding on the scooter on the road near Nursing Takri. This contradiction, in our opinion, is of no significance and the trial Court was right in not disb