JUDGMENT - Dr. G. F. COUTO, J.:---This appeal by the original accused is directed against the judgment dated 4th November, 1987, continued on 11th the same month, whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji, convicted him for offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii) and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and further sentenced him to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh, and in default to undergo a further period of 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment on each count, the substantive sentence having been ordered to run concurrently.

2. A charge sheet had been filed by the Calangute Police against the appellant for offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) and 21 of the Act. The gravamen of the charge is that on 5th March, 1986, at about 8.00 a.m. and at Calangute, the appellant was found in possession of 1 kg. of charas and 30 gms. of brown sugar in contravention of section 8 of the Act. The case of the police indeed is that on that particular day and time, a police party raided the house of the appellant, who in the course of the search, produced the said 1 kg. of charas by removing it from underneath a matters which was lying on a cot as well as a small packet containing 30 gms. of brown sugar which he withdrew from the pocket of a jacket hung on a peg.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty, his case being one of complete denial. The prosecution, therefore, examined six witnesses to prove its case. The learned trial Judge held, on such evidence, that the charge was fully proved and accordingly, convicted the appellant for the offences he was charged with and then, sentenced him in accordance with law.

He now challenges his conviction, mainly, on two grounds. He first contends that the alleged seizure of the charas and brown sugar from his possession is not at all proved. Secondly, in any event, the mandatory procedure laid down in the Act had not been complied with and followed resulting in that the alleged seizure is not seizure at all in the eyes of the law.

4. As regards the appellant's first contention, Mr. S.G. Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for him, urged that the prosecution has not examined any independent and respectable witness in order to prove the seizure of the charas and of the brown sugar from the possession of the appellant. He contended that this violates the provisions of section 100(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and to that extent, the proceedings are vitiated. In fact, according to him, the prosecution sought to prove the seizure and its case by examining to him, the prosecution sought to prove and seizure and its case by examining the panch Sakalkar P.W. 1, Dilip Kumar P.W. 2, Ratan Fatarpenkar P.W. 3, and Apa Teli P.W. 6. None of these witnesses is independent for, Dilip Kumar, Ratan Fatarpenkar and Apa Teli are Police Officers and the panch Sakalkar was at the relevant time a Home Guard, and was as such, under the influence of the police. That apart, he further contended, the pancha Sakalkar is not a reliable witness, and in any case, the evidence given by him in the trial Court by itself discloses that he was not present at the time of the alleged search and seizure. Sakalkar is admittedly a resident of Corlim, Mapusa, and therefore, it is rather surprising and difficult to believe that he was at Calangute, at about 7.30 to 8.00 a.m. In addition, he did not confirm what is recorded in the panchanama, particularly the sequence of the recoveries of the article mentioned therein. He also never mentioned that another panch was present at the time of the search and he alone states that two women were present when the raiding party reached the appellant's house. Reliance was placed in support of the above submissions in (Rattan Lal v. State)1, 1987(2) Crimes 29, (Prem Lata v. State of Himachal Pradesh)2, 1987(1) Crimes 322 and (Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan)3, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document