This Appeal is directed against appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 20(1)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed upon the appellant by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases in Greater Mumbai.

2. Facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :-

On 28th February, 2003, Namboodri Prasannan Shankamarayanan, an intelligence officer working with the Narcotic Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as NCB) gathered intelligence that the appellant was using a particular flat at Naigaon for storing heroin consignments and that the appellant had received a large consignments of heroin that day, for disposal whereof, the appellant was to visit the flat around 6:00 p.m. An intelligence note was, accordingly, prepared and submitted to the Assistant Director, who ordered Shri Namboodri to organize a team, to work out the information and report. Accordingly, a team of officers from NCB left for the location of flat of the appellant after equipping themselves for drawing up panchanamas. On reaching the place two occupants of neighbouring flats were called as panchas and at 6:10 p.m. the raiding party rang bell of the flat. The flat was opened by the appellant and the search of flat yielded 5.700 Kg of Heroin in a bag. Necessary samples were drawn and the remaining contraband in the bag was also sealed. An elaborate panchanama was drawn up and the appellant was taken along with the property to the office of the NCB. He made a confessional statement which was recorded. The appellant was then formally arrested, samples were sent to the Assistant Chemical Analyzer, and the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The remaining property was lodged appropriately. After registration of offence, further investigation was carried out. The laboratories reported that that the samples contain heroin. On completion of investigation, a complaint was lodged with the Special Court.

3. The learned Special Judge charged the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 29 and 21 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the NCB examined in all ten witnesses. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of false implication, the learned Judge held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as re-counted earlier. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the NCB. With the help of both the learned Counsel I have gone through the entire record. PW-1 Namboodri is the officer, who gathered intelligence, prepared intelligence note, arranged for and participated in the raid. PW-2 Vijay Govindram Bhatia is another intelligence officer, who had been entrusted with the task of carrying out raid by his superiors. He seized the incriminating articles, performed panchanama, drew samples and sent the samples to the laboratories. PW-3 Mrs. Pamela Salino D'Souza is the land lady from whom the premises were taken on leave and license basis by the appellant. PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Bhatnagar was working as Assistant Chemical Analyzer in the New Customs House Laboratory, who received the samples and analyzed it. He has proved his report whereby he found that the sample was heroin i.e. Diacetyl Morphine. PW-5 Sanjay Gokhale was also working as Intelligence Officer and had participated in the raid. He had recorded statement of PW-6 Rachita Morje, who was estate agent through whom the appellant had allegedly taken the flat on rent. PW-6 Mrs. Rachita Ramakant Morje is the estate agent, who claimed that the land lady was her friend. She stated that she had shown the premises to the appellant, who came to her for the first time on 1st March,