G.T.NANAVATI, J.

(1) THE only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a room in a hotel occupied by a customer can be said to be a public place for the purpose of Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

(2) THE evidence clearly establishes that the appellant had booked a room in Hotel Safari and that he was in occupation thereof. The evidence also establishes that on 1-12-1991 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was in possession of the key of that room and with that key he had opened the room, when he was called upon by the officers of the Narcotics Bureau to do so. It was from the bag pointed out by him that charas weighing 2.860 kg was found. The bag had contained his clothes also. It is also proved by the report of the chemical analyser that the material which was thus seized from the possession of the appellant was charas.

(3) THE only contention raised before us was that a room in a hotel when it is occupied by a customer cannot be said to be a public place as no one has thereafter a right to enter that room except the said occupier and the owner of that room. We do not find any substance in this contention. The explanation to Sect