The evidence of an expert, such as a Chemical Analyst, must be supported by a clear statement of the tests conducted, the data observed, and the reasons for the opinion expressed. Otherwise, the opinion of the expert cannot be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused.

Headnote:
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTIONS 20(B)(II) AND 22 - POSSESSION OF CHARAS AND L.S.D. WITHOUT LAWFUL EXPLANATION - EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL ANALYST - SUFFICIENCY - RELIABILITY OF EXPERT OPINION - COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 50 OF THE ACT - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - PROCEDURE - IRREGULARITIES - EFFECT ON PROSECUTION CASE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for possession of 105 grams of charas and 30 pills of L.S.D. without lawful explanation. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was found in possession of the contraband during a search conducted on 26th January, 1995, near Fatima Bar and Restaurant in Vagator. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that the search was actually conducted in his house on 30th January, 1995, after he was arrested.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of the Chemical Analyst was insufficient to establish that the recovered substances were charas and L.S.D. The court also found that the prosecution's case was improbable as the search was conducted in the appellant's house, which was situated 50 meters away from the place where the search was alleged to have been conducted. Further, the court found that the panch witnesses were not credible and that the provisions of section 50 of the Act were not complied with.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the Chemical Analyst was sufficient to establish that the recovered substances were charas and L.S.D.? 2. Whether the prosecution's case was improbable? 3. Whether the panch witnesses were credible? 4. Whether the provisions of section 50 of the Act were complied with?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the Chemical Analyst was insufficient to establish that the recovered substances were charas and L.S.D. The court noted that the Chemical Analyst did not provide any details about the tests conducted or the data observed in the materials. The court also noted that the Chemical Analyst relied solely on the biological test conducted by another expert, which was not sufficient to establish the identity of the substances. 2. The court held that the prosecution's case was improbable as the search was conducted in the appellant's house, which was situated 50 meters away from the place where the search was alleged to have been conducted. The court also noted that the prosecution did not provide any explanation for why the search was not conducted on the same day as the appellant's arrest. 3. The court held that the panch witnesses were not credible as they were stock witnesses and were brought from far away places. The court also noted that the Panchanama was read over to the panchas in Konkani, which the appellant did not understand. 4. The court held that the provisions of section 50 of the Act were not complied with as the appellant was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate of his choice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and acquitted the appellant.

JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The accused in Special Criminal Case No. 9 of 1995 in the Court of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Mapusa, is the appellant herein. By the impugned judgment dated 25th April, 1996, the appellant was convicted for having been found to be in possession of 105 grams of charas and 30 pills of L.S.D. without having lawful explanation and convicted under sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. By the impugned judgment the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26th January, 1995, P.S.I. Thorat attached to A.N.C. Police Station, Panaji, received information at 3.30 p.m. that one foreigner named Peter was dealing with Narcotic drugs at Vagator near Fatima Bar and Restaurant. After having recorded the information and reporting the matter to the Higher Officers P.S.I. Thorat proceeded to Vagator between 5.00 p.m. alongwith panchas, namely, Mahesh son of Gunali Nagvekar (P.W. 2), who is residing at Vasco-da-Gama and Agnelo son of Francis Almeida (not examined), who is residing in the market area at Panaji. On the way to Vagator, P.S.I. Thorat directed the driver to stop and got down from the jeep in order to meet his informant and confirm the information. After confirming the information, the raiding party proceeded to the spot. They stopped the vehicle at Ramdas Swami Bar and Restaurant, which is situated 50 mts. away from the Vagator Beach. Thereafter P.S.I., Panchas and other persons in the raiding party started walking towards Fatima Bar and Restaurant, which is at a distance of about 250 mts. from the place where they had parked the jeep. On approaching near Fatima Bar and Restaurant they saw two foreigners having a discussion. They were standing on the road outside Fatima Bar and Restaurant and as the raiding party came near to them, one of the foreigners turned and walked into Fatima Bar and the other foreigner who was wearing blue colour stone washed jean and a T-shirt of green yellow and red colour continued to linger on the road. The said foreigner was carrying a black colour bag on his shoulder. Since he was moving in a suspicious manner, the P.S.I. asked his name and ascertained his name was Peter. The P.S.I. then informed Peter the purpose of their coming there and the P.S.I. identified himself and also other members of the raiding party. He informed the accused that his person has to be searched for Narcotic drugs. The accused was also informed in compliance with section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act that he has got a right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate of his choice, if he so desires. However the accused declined that offer. He was also further informed that the accused has got the liberty to search the members of the raiding party before he has been searched. That offer also was declined by the accused. Accordingly after the formalities the accused was searched. There was no incriminating substance found from the person of the accused but, however, the bag which he was carrying was searched. The P.S.I. opened the outermost zipper of the bag and inside that compartment he found a black colour cloth bag having two zippers on it. The first zipper of the black colour cloth bag contained cash of Rs. 530/-. The second zipper was searched but nothing was found in it, the second zipper of the bigger black bag was opened and found to contain the passport of the accused. The third zipper of the bigger bag was opened and a polythene packet was found inside it. This pol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis