Tuesday, the 15th December, 1987 Couto, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4/5th August, 1987 whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Panaji convicted the appellant under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 land sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment (or one year.

2. Broadly stated, the prosecution case is that on 27th February, 1987 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellant and one another person were found moving in suspicious circumstances and therefore, they were taken to the Police Outpost of Anjuna for interrogation. Therefrom the appellant was taken to the Calangute Police Station, where for search of accused No. 2 a telegram and an inland letter were found in possession of accused No. 2 a reference being made in the telegram to the appellant. Also a cash of Rs. 500/- was found hidden in the socks of accused No. 2. On further interrogation, accused No. 1 disclosed that he was putting up in a Guest House run by one Chopra at Calangute Beach. Therefore, the police party proceeded to the said Guest House in the company of the appellant. Room No. 2 was opened and on search a wooden box was found. The said wooden box was opened by the appellant and some rolls of Charas weighing 2 Kgs. were found in a false bottom of the same box. The Charas rolls were seized under a panchanama and a sample thereof was sent to the Chemical Analyser for the purposes of analysis.

3. The prosecution examined the owner of the Guest House as well as some of the police persons, namely Head Constable Uday Naik (P.W. 2), P.S.I. Tamse (P.W. 3) and P.S.I. Vaman Tari (P.W. 6). A panch, namely Gurudas Palekar (P.W. 5) was also examined by the prosecution. On the basis of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and consequently sentenced him under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

4. Mr. Rebello the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended before us that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish the link between the appellant and the Charas which was apprehended and, therefore, no conviction is warranted by that evidence on record. Elaborating, the learned counsel took us through the prosecution evidence in detail in order to show that there are serious discrepancies as regards the timing of the recording of the panchanamas as well as of the arrest of the accused. That apart the learned counsel submitted that it is clear from the evidence of the panch witness as well as of the police officers that at the time of the search of both the accused, a few articles were found in their possession. As regards the appellant, only a Kadamba bus ticket and an amount of Rs. 35/- were found and so far as the other accused is concerned, a telegram a letter and an amount of Rs. 500/- were found in his possession. Also a key which is according to P.S.I. Tari, of room No. 2 of the Chopra Guest House was found in possession of the said accused when Mr. Rebello took us through the evidence of P.W. 1 Chopra and in particular through the portion thereof where the witness stated that P.S.I. Tad had come to his Guest House and on that occasion had shown to him one key asking him whether the said key was of any of the rooms of the Guest House. On being informed that the key was not of any of the rooms of the house, the same P.S.I. produced another key, which was identified by Chopra as being the key of the room which has been allegedly hired by the appellant. This circumstance, according to the learned counsel, clearly shows that the key was not in possession of the appellant and, therefore, it could not be believed that the said appellant opened room No. 2 of the Guest Ho