J.G. Chitre, J.

1. 1. The appellants are challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Greater Mumbai, in Special Case No. 296 of 1999, wherein the learned Judge had convicted the original accused Mohamed Shaffi @ Mamoo @ Shafi Mamoo, the appellant-original accused No. 2 Prakash Vasudev Raghuvanshi, appellant original accused No. 3 Smt. Dimple Prakash Raghuvanshi, appellant original accused No. 4 Rajesh Popatlal Thakkar @ Rajubhai @ Rajesh Kotak for offence under Section 8(c) punishable under sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act for convenience) and sentenced each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, for each count and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac for each count, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for each count.

2. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16-7-1999, the concerned officers of N.C.B. got the intelligence that one Mohammed Shaffi was going to take delivery of large quantity of Mandrax tablets kept in two suitcases from one Maya residing at Tarachand building, D. N. Singh Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai. Hence, the said information was dispatched by P.W. Sanjay Gokhale to his superior and thereafter the panchas were called and information was disclosed to them and a trap was arranged. At about 8.30 p.m., the raiding party was near the said flat and at that time, they noticed that a taxi bearing No. MMO-633 came near said Tarachand building and stopped. A person got down from it and asked taxi driver to wait and went to upper stairs of the said building. Thereafter same person, along with one more person came down carrying two suitcases. As they were about to keep those two suit cases in the dicky of taxi, the members of raiding party caught them. On interrogation, they disclosed that those two suit cases contained mandrax tablets, which they procured from said Maya staying in room No. 30 of Tarachand building. The said suitcases were opened in presence of panch witnesses and the members of raiding party learnt that those two suitcases were containing Mandrax tablets kept in polythene bags. Both the persons, together with suit cases were taken to room No. 30 and on bell being pressed, a woman named Dimple Prakash Raghuvanshi, wife of Prakash Raghuvanshi opened the door. On search of the said premises, Rs. 1,75,000/-were found in Indian currency and some documents were noticed by the members of raiding party. Those Mandrax tablets and those documents were seized under panchanama.

.3. Those persons were taken to the office of N.C.B. Their statements were recorded in view of provisions of Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act. Investigation proceeded and the charge sheet was submitted in the trial Court against all the appellants, as

.well as against said Mohammed Shaffi @ Mamoo. All of them faced the trial and all of them have been convicted as mentioned above.

3. 4. Before the judgment was pronounced original accused Mohammed Shaffi @ Mamoo expired.

4. 5. The Advocates appearing for the appellants seriously challenged the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. They submitted that the investigating agency did not arrest said Maya and one Haji Nisar, who were the real culprits. They submitted that when it is the case of the prosecution that Maya was to give the delivery of those two suitcases containing Mandrax tablets, which Haji Nisar was to purchase, how those two persons were not made accused. They submitted that the role of Mohammed Shaffi, Prakash Raghuvanshi, Dimple Raghuvanshi and Rajesh Thakker was not at all disclosing the commission of the offences punishable under provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.

.6. They submitted that when it is the prosecution case, that the members of raiding party caught both Prakash Raghuvanshi and Mohammed Shaffi @ Mamoo, while putting those two