IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and the weight of LSD-laden papers is considered in determining commercial quantity under the Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Appellant is challenging the judgment dtd. 28/10/2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa, Mapusa in Special Criminal Case No.22/2015. By this judgment, the Appellant/Accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 8(c) and Sec. 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and accordingly, convicted for the said offences and further, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of ?1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, Accused was further directed to undergo imprisonment for one year.

2. Heard learned Counsel Ms Caroline Collasso with Advocate Mr Kamlakant Poulekar for the Appellant and Mr Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

3. According to the charge framed against Accused, the case of the Prosecution is that on 20/12/2014, between 20:15 hours to 24:00 hours, at Blue Colour Kiosk, having Glowing sign board of Amul, situated at Starco Junction at Anjuna, Bardez, Goa, Accused was found in illegal possession of 24 pieces/papers weighing 0.25 grams suspected to contain LSD being commercial quantity and without any authority. Accordingly, FIR was registered on the same day vide Crime No.27/2014 by ANC Police Station, Panaji. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the NDPS Court at Mapusa which was registered as Special Criminal Case No.22/2015. On framing of charge and explaining it to the Accused, he pleaded not guilty. During trial, Prosecution examined seven witnesses. Accused denied entire case of the Prosecution while answering questions put to him under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not step into the witness box. The learned Trial Court found the Accused guilty for possessing commercial quantity of LSD and accordingly sentenced him to suffer ten years imprisonment and to pay fine of ?1,00,000/- under Sec. 22(c) of NDPS Act.

4. Ms Collasso appearing for the Appellant/Accused raised multiple grounds thereby challenging the findings of the Trial Court. Firstly, she claimed that there is inordinate delay of conducting raid from the time of receipt of the information, which has not been explained. Secondly, she claimed that the search warrant was manipulated only to suit the case of the Prosecution. Thirdly, she claimed that statement of the witnesses are stereotypes and therefore, the investigation is only a farce. Fourthly, she claimed that Prosecution failed to prove what was attached during the alleged search is not the same which was forwarded to the laboratory. Fifthly, she claimed that the report of the Chemical Analyser is not at all reliable. Sixthly, she claimed that the so-called test conducted at the site has not been proved and the Raiding Officer failed to preserve the pieces used for such testing. Seventhly, she claimed that there is no compliance of Ss. 50, 52-A and 55 of NDPS Act, Eightly, she claimed that the possibility of tampering with the property attached during the intervening period has not been ruled out. Lastly, she claimed that there are major discrepancies, variations, contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution for which benefit of doubt needs to be given to the Accused.

5. Mr Faldessai appearing for the State, submits that explanation is provided with regard to the time when information was received and the time at which raid was conducted. There is sufficient material to show that 24 pieces containing LSD were recovered from the possession of the Accused. The Field Testing Kit was used at the site and the Raiding Officer used a very small piece of paper for conducting such test which was then destroyed. He then submits that the report of CA clearly goes to show that what was found during the raid was forwarded to the CA and tested positive for LSD. The Chemical Analyser produced the worksheets, graph thereby proving the type of tests conducted, confirming presence of LSD. He then submitted that the seal used for sealing of the contraband at the