JUDGMENT E.S. Da Silva, J. - The accused person in Sessions Case No. 25/90 challenges by this Appeal the conviction and sentence passed against her by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, for offences punishable under Sections 21 and 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter called the N.D.P.S. Act). 2. The brief facts of the case .are that, on 24.1.1990, when a police party headed by P.S.I. Torezinha D'Souza, from the Anti-Narcotic Cell, went for a random raid from Calanguto to Anjuna via Baga, for the purposes of checking drugs, they stopped at "Knock Inn" bar where a group of 14 - 15 foreigners were sitting under a 'mallo' inside the compound wall of the bar. On seeing the police jeep the foreigners started coming out. At that time the accused was stopped by P.S.I. Terezinha who disclosed to her that she wanted to search her for drugs and offered herself to be searched by the accused along with the raiding party. When the accused declined to take their search, P.S.I. Terezinha personally searched the accused in the presence of two panchas and from her cloth money bag, tied around her waist, she recovered one paper 'puddi' containing whitish powder, about 1 gm. in weight, suspected to be cocaine and one piece of charas, also weighing around 1 gm., which were both sealed and attached under a competent panchanama. Thereupon the accused was taken into custody to the Calangute Police Station for further investigation. A complaint was lodged by P.S.1. Terezinha under Sections 21 and 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and after she completed the investigation a competent charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences and on here pleading not guilty the prosecution recorded the evidence of four witnesses to prove its case. P.W: 1 Nandakishor G. Vijaykar, Assistant Chemical Analyser, from Bombay, was examined to prove that the drug sample which was sent for testing by the Calanguto Police Station, in Criminal Case No. 38/90, was containing charas. P.W. 2 M.K. Malwe, who is also an Asstt. Chemical Analyser, from Bombay, has deposed that he has tested another sample sent by Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji, connected with Cr. P.W. 2 M.K. Malwe, who is also an Asstt. Chemical Analyser, from Bombay, has deposed that he has tested another sample sent by Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji, connected with Cr. No. 38/90 of Calangute Police Station which consisted of a polythene paper with whitish powder and which was found to be cocaine hydrochloride. P.W. 3 Krishna S. Hadfadkar was the panch witness in whose presence the accused was searched and the drugs seized from her waist belt and P.W. 4 the Investigating Officer, Terezinha D'Souza, who has stated that when she accosted the accused while leaving "Knock Inn" bar she recovered from the money bag tied around her waist one 'puddi' with whitish powder and a piece of charas which were immediately attached along with the cloth belt. 3. The statement of the accused, under Section 313, Cr.P.C., was also recorded during which, although admitting her presence on the spot at the time of the raid, die accused flatly denied that she was carrying cocaine or charas in her waist belt and also the fact of recovery of any drugs from her possession. One witness, namely, D.W. 1 Simeon Ereira was examined in defence. He deposed that on that day, before the raiding party went to "Knock Inn" Bar where the accused was intercepted and detained by P.S.I. Terezinha, the came party conducted another raid at "La Franza" Bar, at Arpora, where he was arrested and taken into the police jeep." 4. The learned Sessions Judge, however, believed the evidence of the prosecution by discarding the testimony of the defence witness and being satisfied that the accused had been really caught in possession of drugs convicted her for the aforesaid offences under the N.D.P.S. Act and imposed a sentence of 10 years of Regorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or in default to undergo six months of Simple Imprisonment, in respect of each of those offences, with a further direction that the substantive sentence under the two counts should run concurrently and that in default of payment of fine should run one after the other after the substantive sentence was undergone. 5. The main grievance of Shri Chari, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, is that the prosecution story was wrongly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as sufficient to base the conviction of the accused for an offence of possession, of drugs. 5. The main grievance of Shri Chari, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, is that the prosecution story was wrongly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as sufficient to base the conviction of the accused for an offence of possession, of drugs. Shri Chari was particularly sore with the testimony of Krishna Hadfadkar and P.S.I. Terezinha which had been believed by the learned Sessions Judge inspite of material contradictions and inconsistencies pointing out to their falsity and total absence of genuineness. According to Shri Chari both these witnesses examined by the prosecution to support its case, besides the Chemical analysers, have stated lies in the Court, without any respect for the truth and therefore the learned Sessions Judge should not have relied on this type of witnesses to substantiate his finding that the accused was guilty of the charge of possessing drugs. Shri Chari particularly contended that, on his own admission, lanch Hadfadkar was falling squarely within the definition of a "Professional, witness" or "stock witness" always available and at the back and call of the police. In order to substantiate this submission Shri" Chari took us through the evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge which shows that P.S.I. Terezinha has stated in her" deposition that it was P.S.I. Gaonkar, incidentally at that time in charge of the Calangute Police Station, who had given to her the names of both the panchas Krishna and Danny and also that Krishna had admitted his having acted as a panch in about 18 panchanamas, out of which at least 12 were in drug cases and that even on the very day he had stood as pancha in two cases. Shri Chari submits that the fact of Shri Gaonkar having told P.S.I. Terezinha to call Krishna and Danny was by itself sufficient to create in the mind of the Court that Krishna was under the thumb of the police officers and always willing to oblige them, moreso when Krishna himself had candidly acknowledged that he does not know English which fact, however, did not prevent him from taking part in about 18panchanamas for the police. Shri Chari relied on the celebrated authority of Prem Chand v. Union .of India and others 1 which has strongly deprecated the use of "stock witnesses" who had become a permanent pawn in the hands of the police. Shri Chari relied on the celebrated authority of Prem Chand v. Union .of India and others 1 which has strongly deprecated the use of "stock witnesses" who had become a permanent pawn in the hands of the police. In this judgment, Krishna Iyer, J. has lively observed: "Courts, trusting the police may act on apparently veracious testimony and sentence people into prison. The community, satisfied with such convictions, may well believe that all is well with law" and order. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the systematic pollution of the judicial process and the consequent threat to human rights of innocent persons. We hope that the higher authorities in the Department who, apparently, are not aware of the nefarious goings-on at the lesser levels will immediately take measures to stamp out this unscrupulous menace". Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Usman Haiderkhan Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra2, which has held that the evidence of a panch witness who is amenable to member of a raiding party could not be relied on by the court for an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. We are afraid, however, that the ratio of both these rulings do not seem to be applicable in our case. Obviously the fact of the names of the panchas having been disclosed to P.S.I. Terezinha by a colleague of her, who happened to be in charge of the same police station in whose jurisdictional area the raid was set to be conducted does not suggest that these witnesses were deemed to be amenable to the police officer. Indeed P.S.I. Gaonkar obviously being familiar with the character of the people of his area it was but natural that in such serious cases, where the respectability and reliability of a panch witness should be the main concern of the police officer conducting the raid, she was expected to take advice from him while selecting panch witnesses who normally playa vital role in this type of prosecutions. Therefore nothing wrong could have been inferred from this fact so much so there is no evidence to suggest that, in the case of Krishna, he was in any manner whatsoever susceptible to the influence of the police officers. Therefore nothing wrong could have been inferred from this fact so much so there is no evidence to suggest that, in the case of Krishna, he was in any manner whatsoever susceptible to the influence of the police officers. As it was otherwise- explained by P.S.I. Terezinha, she was unable to say whether the panch witnesses in this case had stood as panch as in other cases and whenever she used to go for raids in drug cases, no one was coming forward to act as panch and therefore she had to make prior arrangements for panchas. The learned Sessions Judge appears also to have taken note of this difficulty faced by the police, specially in drug cases, when he observed that some of the residents in the beaches are thriving on the foreigners and that it was not expected that persons working in the said restaurants or people from the locality, who also benefit in various manners from the traffic of drugs, would help the police in the detection of such type of offences. However, we are in agreement with Shri Chari that in case of a witness, like Krishna Hadfadkar, who admittedly has been available to the police officers as panch for at least about 18 times, his evidence should be closely scrutinised for the purpose of assessing its intrinsic genuineness and to rule out any possibility of mischief or inclination on his part to remain obliging to the police authorities. Shri Chari is also right when he insists that, being the power of observation and self-confidence of this type of experienced witnesses to be deemed as above that of the normal persons who face the courts very rarely, any contradiction or inconsistency in their deposition should not be easily condoned and instead the same should be seriously viewed for the purpose of upsetting and very credence of their testimony. 7. This being the position and looking at the things in this view the question which arises before us. is to ascertain whether, in the given context of circumstances occurring in this case, it can be said that the evidence of P.W.3 Krishna and P. W .4 Terezinha inspire real confidence and should be therefore accepted as truthful so as to substantiate the charge framed against the accused. 8. is to ascertain whether, in the given context of circumstances occurring in this case, it can be said that the evidence of P.W.3 Krishna and P. W .4 Terezinha inspire real confidence and should be therefore accepted as truthful so as to substantiate the charge framed against the accused. 8. In order to find out a proper answer to this question we must make a reference to a few basic contradictions, amongst several ones pointed out by Shri Chari, while confronting the statement of panch Krishna with that of P.SJ. Terezinha. To be noted, at the outset, that Krishna appears to be a person having a very good memory because he was even able to remember, while deposing before the learned Sessions Judge, the registration number of the police jeep, being No. GGE-8, which allegedly took part in the raid. 9. The first objection raised by Shri Chari was with regard to the composition of the police party and the timing of the entire raid. Admittedly on that day three P.S.Is. went together in the same jeep and were forming part of the raiding party. According to Krishna, besides head constable Kerkar and one more police constable, P.S.I. Terezinha along with P.S.I. Pais and P.S.I. Bosco were present in the jeep. But P.S.I. Terezinha in her statement differed and said that it was P.S.I. Pais and P.S.I. Serafino who, with head constable Kerkar and two panchas, left along with her on that night to Anjuna for a random checking of narcotic activities and again, in cross-examination, categorically acknowledged that P.S.I. Bosco did not accompany her. But P.S.I. Terezinha in her statement differed and said that it was P.S.I. Pais and P.S.I. Serafino who, with head constable Kerkar and two panchas, left along with her on that night to Anjuna for a random checking of narcotic activities and again, in cross-examination, categorically acknowledged that P.S.I. Bosco did not accompany her. Further, the same Krishna, at the start of his examination-in-chief stated that he was called to the police station at 9.00 p.m., but in crossexamination said that a police constable came to call him from his house at about 8.30 p.m. and that, after taking his food, he left the house by motor-cycle at 9.00 p.m. having reached Calangute Police Station at 9.10 p.m. where he sat for about 15 minutes after which they started from the police station with the raiding party at 9.30 p.m. This fact of Krishna having come to the police station at 9.15 p.m. and the raiding party leaving at about 9.30 p.m. is corroborated by P.S.I. Terezinha when she stated, as otherwise Krishna also, that after a drive of about 10 to 15 minutes to go from Calangute to Anjuna, via Baga, they went straightaway to "Knock Inn" Bar at Anjuna where they started the panchanama at 9.45 p.m. It was indeed a perfectly timed and tailed deposition given by the two witnesses in this regard. Krishna further stated that after they left Calangute Police Station they proceeded to Anjuna and went to the restaurant "Knock Inn" Bar and in cross-examination made it clear that from the time they left the Calangute Police Station and came to Baga and from Baga went to Anjuna, the jeep did not stop at Baga but stopped only at "Knock Inn" Bar at Anjuna. However, P.S.I. Terezinha, who in her complaint had recorded that the raiding party had left Calangute Police Station to Anjuna at about 19 hours (7.00 p.m.) but in chief had differently said that they had started from Calangute Police Station at about 9.30 p.m., in cross-examination stated firstly that they went via Baga and thereafter proceeded to Anjuna and on reaching near "Knock Inn" bar and restaurant the jeep stopped at about 5 to 6 metres away from that restaurant. But soon Terezinha who in the beginning had corroborated Krishna and had said that after they left Calangute Police. But soon Terezinha who in the beginning had corroborated Krishna and had said that after they left Calangute Police. Station and before they reached "Knock Inn" Bar they did not stop anywhere on the way, was compelled to contradict her earlier statement and admit that the jeep was halted for some time in front of the Bar "La Franza" at Arpora, after they left Calangute and before they stopped at "Knock Inn" Bar and also that they might have stopped at "La Franza" Bar for about 15 minutes, thus giving on this point a new version totally inconsistent with the deposition of Krishna. Again and on the matter of the arrest of another foreigner of British nationality on the same day at restaurant "La Franza", at Arpora, before the raiding party proceeded to "Knock Inn" Bar, at Anjuna, and on the fact of this foreigner having been taken in the same jeep along with the raiding party when they went to Anjuna, Krishna who in chief had just failed to make any mention to that, in his crossexamination, however, appears to have positively ruled out the presence of that British national in their jeep as they reached Anjuna, while stating that when they got down from the police jeep at "Knock Inn" Bar the only persons present in jeep were the police driver, three P.S.Is., policeman Kerkar, another policeman, Krishna himself and the other pancha. But in this regard P.S.I. Terezinha seems to have a completely different story to narrate. But in this regard P.S.I. Terezinha seems to have a completely different story to narrate. Indeed Terezinha who, as it happened with Krishna, had not made any reference in the chief to the halt made at restaurant "La Franza", at Arpora, and in cross-examination stated that when they stopped at Anjuna only the driver remained in the jeep while all others proceeded to "Knock Inn" Bar and further that she did not arrest anyone between the time they left Calangute Police Station till they reached Anjuna nor did any members of the raiding party arrest anyone during that period, was, however, forced to admit, under the heavy pressure of a further searching cross-examination, that she did not remember if any member of her raiding party had arrested any British national at "Knock Inn" Bar at the time of the arrest of the accused and that, although one foreign national was taken into the police jeep from "Knock Inn" Barto Calangute Police Station, she could not say whether he was a British national by name Ross. And, as if all this strange mixture of half-truths and untruths were not by itself sufficient to project the image of an hesitant and immature Police Officer, P.S.I. Terezinha who, since that moment, went on drifting without any control in the path of unbelievable enormities and just asserted that she did not know if any offence was registered against any foreign national at the Calangute Police Station by forgetting for a while that the said foreign national had been admittedly taken into her jeep during the random raid at the same time feigning ignorance as to under whose authority he was picked up at Anjuna and also under what circumstances he had been detained on that day and kept in police custody. But P.S.I. Terezinha did not stop here and continued: “The foreign national was made to sit at the back side of the jeep. I do not know from where the foreign national was brought. When we reached "Knock Inn" no foreign national was sitting in our jeep. However when we returned from "Knock Inn" the accused and the foreign national were made to sit on the back portion of the jeep". I do not know from where the foreign national was brought. When we reached "Knock Inn" no foreign national was sitting in our jeep. However when we returned from "Knock Inn" the accused and the foreign national were made to sit on the back portion of the jeep". An obvious attempt form P.S.I. Terezinha to hide from the Court that the foreign national picked up earlier, at Arpora, at "La Franza" restaurant, had been taken in the police jeep along with the raiding party headed by her upto Anjuna and was very much there present in the jeep when it stopped near "Knock Inn" Bar and the accused was there accosted by P.S.I. Terezinha. And the worst, the said Officer did not even bother any more in allowing herself to be flashed in such a bad light when she went on somersaulting again under the weight of her own contradictions: "I do not remember if on the way from "Knock Inn" to the place where we dropped the pancha, the jeep stopped near the house of a foreigner. I do not remember if there was any discussion whether to go in the house of the foreigner. I do not remember if it was decided to 'leave the foreigner. I do not remember if the foreigner who was taken in the jeep besides the accused was released by Calangute Police. It may be that my statement was recorded in connection with the foreign national on the night of the incident. The jeep was halted in front of Bar La Franza, after we left Galangute and before we reached Knock Inn. The jeep was not left at La Franza. One foreigner was arrested at La Franza. I do not know that name of the said foreigner. I do not remember if my statement was recorded in connection with said foreigner arrested at La Franza. I do not remember Simeon Ereire, British national: I do not remember if my statement was recorded in connection with said Simeon Ereire. I did not get down from the jeep at La Franza. PSI Pais had got down from the jeep at La Franza. Some staff member might have gone down there. I do not remember if pancha witnesses get down at La Franza. We might have stopped at La Franza for about 15 minutes". I did not get down from the jeep at La Franza. PSI Pais had got down from the jeep at La Franza. Some staff member might have gone down there. I do not remember if pancha witnesses get down at La Franza. We might have stopped at La Franza for about 15 minutes". At this stage for the first time during the trial a new revelation comes and it appears that Terezinha is trying to find a cover for all her earlier fabricated statements: “The said foreigner was sent with Calangute Police Station jeep and he was not made to sit in our jeep”. But she feels insecure and uncertain about these facts and adds: "I am not very certain about it". And nevertheless the story of the "new jeep" seems handy and still appealing to P.SJ. Terezinha: "The Calangute jeep came later after our stopping at La Franza. The Calangute jeep was still at La Franza when we left for Knock Inn. Some constables were there in Calangutejeep but we do not know their names". 10. It follows therefore that this crude deposition of Terezinha only discloses lack of straight forwardness and deliberate attempt to short circuit the truth, and worst of all, to mislead the Court by making it to believe unbelievable situations which could never happen in the peculiar circumstances the raid took place. Admittedly, two arrests took place and two panchanamas were conducted on that night in the presence of the same set of panchas, being one of the British national Simeon Ereire at "La Franza" restaurant, at Arpora, and the second, thereafter, of the accused at "Knock Inn" Bar, at Anjuna. It is the learned Sessions Judge himself who so acknowledges when he refers in the " judgment that Krishna was a party on that day in both the cases, namely, in the case of the accused and in the case of Simeon Ereira. And certainly the arrest and the panchanama of Simeon could not be after the arrest and panchanama of the accused not only because both P.S.I. Terezinha and Krishna, although belatedly, accepted that the jeep halted first at "La Franza", at Arpora, and from there went to Anjuna but also because it is their say that, after the accused was detained in possession of drugs at "Knock Inn" Bar, the panchas were dropped at Arpora on their return to Calangute Police Station. 11. In the circumstances we are inclined to agree with Shri Chari when he strongly urges that the action of P.S.I. Terezinha in not wanting to make a mention of the halt of the jeep at Arpora on its way to Anjuna and as such to keep undisclosed the fact of the arrest of Simeon Ereira and of his being taken in the jeep before the raid conducted at "Knock Inn" Bar is a deliberate plan on the part of the prosecution for obvious reasons because if the arrest of the said Ereira was known to the Court his presence in the jeep when the accused's arrest took place might become a source of embarassment to the prosecution. Indeed this appears to be the only explanation for the consistent effort made by P.S.I. Terezinha to continuously deny the presence of Simeon Ereira on the scene at the time the accused was stopped by her at "Knock Inn" Bar even after she had reluctantly admitted his arrest earlier at the restaurant "La Franza". 12. Shri Chari made an unsuccessful attempt, at some stage of his arguments, to raise the question of the learned Sessions Judge's refusal to allow the accused's prayer to recall the pancha Krishna for the purpose of his confrontation with the statement given by him as pancha also in another panchanama conducted on the same day at "La Franza" Bar, wherein Simeon Ereira was arrested and charged for being in possession of drugs it seems that the said case ended in his acquittal and that during the trial Krishna gave a substantially different story about the circumstances and the timing of his calling to the police station on that day, the fact of Krishna being a witness when Simeon was arrested at "La Franza" Bar and also the fact of the said Simeon having been taken in the same jeep which proceeded thereafter to Anjuna, which statement, per se, would be sufficient to expose the character of Krishna himself as well as the P.S.I. Terezinha. But for technical reasons Shri Chari was compelled to give up and not to press upon the point in view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge's otherwise elaborate and speaking order justifying the refusal of the accused's request was ultimately upheld in revision by a Single Judge of this Court. But for technical reasons Shri Chari was compelled to give up and not to press upon the point in view of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge's otherwise elaborate and speaking order justifying the refusal of the accused's request was ultimately upheld in revision by a Single Judge of this Court. Thus the question ended there and inspite of this statement of Krishna, in Sessions Case No. 26/90, having been made available to us, we are unable to even consider the possibility of going through it or reading it in evidence by taking recourse to the provision of Section 391 of Cr.P.C. 13. It is therefore in the context of these special circumstances in which a peculiar situation arose by force, of law thus preventing this Court from taking notice of material evidence given by the witness Krishna in another very much connected case regarding an incident happened on the same day of the occurrence, as well as other relevant evidence recorded in that case, that the statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recorded by the Court and the testimony of defence witness Simeon Ereira assumes considerable importance. 14. The accused at the time she gave her statement Before the learned Sessions Judge has said that when she was stopped by P.S.I. Terezinha, she was with a friend Mr. Luis outside the restaurant "Knock Inn". She had on her right hand her puppy six weeks old and on the left hand one roasted chicken wrapped in a paper. Terezinha did not ask anything and did not also identify herself as a police officer. She just grasped at her body and pulled over her jacket to search her brassier. She opened her long pant and pulled it down. The accused got angry and called her "bitch". She defended herself with her elbow as her hands were full. The other man with beard bent down and he had a white paper in his hand. He was one and half metre away from her. He said that the paper was containing cocaine. She shouted that it was not her paper P.S.I. Terezinha told her that she was arrested. She then handed over the puppy and the roasted chicken to her friend Luis and was taken in the police jeep of blue colour as far as she remembers. He said that the paper was containing cocaine. She shouted that it was not her paper P.S.I. Terezinha told her that she was arrested. She then handed over the puppy and the roasted chicken to her friend Luis and was taken in the police jeep of blue colour as far as she remembers. This statement of the accused was substantially corroborated by D.W.1 Simeon Ereira who deposed that he was arrested on 24-1-1990 at "La Franza" Bar, between 8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. The raiding party arrived and went into the restaurant. They searched a few people and asked to see a few passports. The police left the restaurant and took him along with them as well as another French national. No one else was taken. There was one lady police officer amongst the raiding party and she was standing by the side of the jeep. From "La Franza" they were taken to the house of French national. However, on the way, the jeep stopped near "Knock Inn" restaurant on the road side. In order to go to the house of the French national one has to walk. Then there were discussions between the raiding party members whether to take the French national or leave him. The police ultimately decided to leave him and he was allowed to go. The members of the raiding party then went to the restaurant "Knock Inn". He continued sitting in the jeep on the backside behind the driver. The police went into "Knock Inn" and brought one British national v. 10 was put into the jeep. Thereafter he saw the accused coming along with another British national Lou. The accused was carrying one parcel and one puppy. The accused was approached by the lady police officer. There was one more policeman with her. He could not hear what was the discussion between the lady police officer and the accused but he saw the lady police officer starting a search of the accused while she was having the puppy and the parcel with her. The accused in angry tone called the police officer 'bitch'. The English national was demanding identification of the lady police officer. The accused gave the dog and the parcel to the British national. The lady police officer caught the blouse of the accused from below the neck and the accused was trying to defend. The accused in angry tone called the police officer 'bitch'. The English national was demanding identification of the lady police officer. The accused gave the dog and the parcel to the British national. The lady police officer caught the blouse of the accused from below the neck and the accused was trying to defend. While they were struggling the policeman bent down and picked up something from the floor. The struggling stopped and they put the accused into the jeep opposite to him at the back side of the jeep. 15. Therefore and irrespective of the merits of the evidence led by the accused and the truthfulness of her own statement the fact remains that, in view of what we have said above regarding the conduct of the police officer P.S.I. Terezinha and the suspicious stand taken by the pancha Krishna (whose deposition seems to agree with that of the P.S.I. Terezinha only on the point of actual recovery of drugs from her cloth waist money belt) in concealing the presence of Simeon Ereira from the scene of offence amply justify a reasonable suspicion about the veracity of the whole incident thus enhancing the probability of the version given by the accused being true. We must consider that we are dealing with a case involving. a very serious offence which invites a most harsh punishment provided by the prevailing law. It is thus the bounden duty of the Court to make sure that in such circumstances an overall view of the evidence unfolded by the prosecution be taken so as to see whether the same inspires enough confidence and is therefore sufficient to substantiate the prosecution charges. We should not overlook also that in the present case the prosecution has relied, besides the Chemical Analyser's evidence, on the testimony of the pancha Krishna and the Investigating Officer Terezinha inspite of the fact that, in the charge-sheet three more police officers, being P.S.I. Viny Pais, P.S.I. Serafin Dias and H.C. Kerkar, whose names came to be referred in the ,course of the trial, having been cited as witnesses of the incident, the prosecution has not explained as to why they chose not to examine any of them in support of their case. It thus follows that taking into account the totally of the circumstances referred to we feel inclined to hold that the testimony of both P.W. 1 Terezinha and pancha Krishna cannot be said to be above all suspicion and therefore the possibility of a false case being fabricated against the accused, as pleaded by her cannot be ruled out. 16. It was next submitted by Shri Chari that from the evidence available on record and the facts admitted by P.S.I. Terezinha, it is to be inferred that there was in this case a clear breach committed by the Investigating Officer with regard to the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that in her deposition P.S.I. Terezinha has carefully worded her statement and said that when the accused came out from the restaurant ("Knock Inn") she stopped her and disclosed her identity as well as of police staff. Then she also disclosed to her that she would take a search for drugs and before that she was free to search the raiding party which she declined. It was only thereafter that she carried a personal search on her body and recovered the drugs from her waist belt. Then she also disclosed to her that she would take a search for drugs and before that she was free to search the raiding party which she declined. It was only thereafter that she carried a personal search on her body and recovered the drugs from her waist belt. Of course this version was also faithfully corroborated, in this part, by the pancha Krishna but the fact remains that, after all, his testimony on the point of corroboration regarding the warning allegedly given by P.S.I. Terezinha to the accused that she was going to be searched for drugs and that, if the accused so wanted, she was free to search her first and the raiding party as well, which she declined, cannot also be easily believed or relied upon for the simple reason that, according to Terezinha, she spoke to the accused in English and, on his own admission, Krishna had gone on record that he does not understand English And, as if his candid admission on his part were not enough, Krishna repeatedly went on saying so during the course of the cross-examination, first when he stated that he did not see what the police had written on the envelopes where in the drugs attached were sealed, although lie was shown them by the police, because he did not understand English and that he did not also know what was written on those envelopes which were identified by him only on account and on the sole basis of his signature and, again, when he testified that, at the time of the search, P.S.I. Terezinha put her hand inside the pocket of the waist belt and immediately took out and he does not know what the accused then stated to the P.S.I. Terezinha as she was speaking in English. Further this reference to the compliance of legal mandate is neither reflected in the very complaint of P.S.I. Terezinha nor even in the panchanama which were both documents prepared within minutes from the alleged actual search and seizure of the drugs. According to the complaint, Shri Chari urges, when the accused was stopped by P.S.I. Terezinha and she disclosed her name and nationality, the accused was "explained the purpose of her being stopped". However, in the said complaint there is no mention that the accused was also told that she was suspected of possessing drugs. According to the complaint, Shri Chari urges, when the accused was stopped by P.S.I. Terezinha and she disclosed her name and nationality, the accused was "explained the purpose of her being stopped". However, in the said complaint there is no mention that the accused was also told that she was suspected of possessing drugs. As it has already been pointed out, pancha Krishna had said that he does not understand Engligh and, therefore, what P.S.I. Terezinha told to the accused has no value because of his ignorance of English language. Shri Chari cited the aforesaid ruling in the case of Usman Haiderkhan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (supra) which has reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 50 of the Act. Shri Chari observed that being that provision an important safeguard given to an accused person by the legislation, keeping in view our criminal jurisprudence, the seizure before the Magistrate would make the recovery creditworthy and would remove the scope of a person being implicated falsely. Reliance was also placed by Shri Chari on another decision of this Division Bench in the case of Shri Suresh kumar Khandelval v. State3 which, while affirming that non-compliance with the mandate of Section 50 would prejudicially affect the accused, however held that Section 50 being a provision mandatory in nature, its mandate was restricted to the information to be given to the person to be searched that he was intended to be searched for drugs. In the decision already referred to by Shri Chari (Usman Haiderkhan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra), the Court, after making it clear that without entering into the question as to whether the provisions are mandatory or not but bearing in mind that definitely the said provisions had been made with a purpose, however, held that the provision of Section 50 was implicitly making it obligatory on the police officer, who was in charge of the raid, to see to it that the search on the accused person by the said officer should be done by him only if the accused declined to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Shri Chari observed that he was mentioning the aforesaid ruling only on the limited principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Shri Chari observed that he was mentioning the aforesaid ruling only on the limited principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. We are also aware of two more judgments rendered by two different Division Benches of this Court which have taken the view that Section 50 of the Act. is directory. One is of the Goa Bench, in the case of Abdul Satar v. The State4 and the other of Nagpur Bench, being an unreported judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 288/89 dated 4-12-1989 (Hemant Vyankatesh Agmar v. State of Maharashtra). In both these rulings the view taken by the Courts is that any defect in the investigation would not vitiate the trial unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to the accused persons. In this light the provision of Section 50 of the Act was considered directory arid not mandatory. 17. Shri Chari further referred to one more notable contradiction between the depositions of Krishna and P.S.I. Terezinha which, according to him, had become very material. In his cross-examination pancha Krishna has all along said that the accused has been always collaborative with the police during the search and no mention was made, on the contrary, of any objection raised to the personal search on her body. However, much differently, P.S.I. Terezinha states during her deposition in the Court that the accused tried to resist the search and tried not to allow her to touch the belt. In the circumstances, Shri Chari wondered, when these two eye witnesses were so divergently describing the same incident, how the Court could choose between them and conclude as to who was telling the truth? Besides, even assuming that the accused had resisted, as per the say of P.S.I. Terezinha, it was not disclosed what type of resistance was put up by her so much so P.S.I. Terezinha has not said that she required the help of anybody else to conduct the search because, if the accused had resisted then, certainly, some other's help would become necessary. On the other hand and with regard to this alleged resistance Shri Chari, tried to make out a point and argue that Section 50 requires that the accused must be aware that she is being searched for drugs and, on her asking, the search should be conducted in the persence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. On the other hand and with regard to this alleged resistance Shri Chari, tried to make out a point and argue that Section 50 requires that the accused must be aware that she is being searched for drugs and, on her asking, the search should be conducted in the persence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. For that matter it was not necessary that the accused should expressly ask to be taken before a Magistrate, being sufficient that the accused should make it known to the police officer that she did not want t6 be searched by him for the officer taking her before the Magistrate and got the search done in his presence. Shri Chari insisted that, for a trained police officer like P.S.I. Terezinha, when she attempted to search the accused and the moment the accused resisted the search, that should be an indication for P.S.I. Terezinha to comply with the mandate of Section 50 not only in letter but also in its proper spirit, considering that that resistance amounted to an implied warning as good as a signal made by the accused that she did not want to be searched by the police officer. Besides, P.S.I. Terezinha should also not overlook that the accused being a foreigner of German nationality, her knowledge of English would be normally superficial and rudimentary. Hence the conduct of the accused in resisting the search should have been understood as an implicit demand from her to be searched only in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The resistance should be construed as a request. However, P.S.I. Terezinha failed to make it out and this by itself shows that in the circumstances it cannot be said that the mandate of Section 50, even in the restricted sense as laid down in the judgment of Khandelval’s case, has been strictly and legally complied with. Shri Chari also observed that when we usually speak about ignorance of law as being no excuse, that should refer to the knowledge of substantive law only and not certainly to the procedural law specially when foreigners are concerned and they could not be aware of any procedural safeguards aimed at giving them adequate protecting against the misuse of severe legislation affecting their prosonal liberty. We have only recorded in this respect the submissions of Shri Chari who seems to have made a very valid point, on facts, with regard to the important aspect of interpretation of Section 50. We have already made a detailed mention of the legal position as it stands and to the decisions to which we are bound in view of the fact that the law on the matter is to be deemed as settled at least for the time being. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, as a result of our findings about the reliability of the evidence of pancha Krishna and P.S.I. Terezinha, nothing more is required to be said as to whether Section 50 of the Act was or not actually complied in letter and spirit in this case. 18. Shri Chari further refers to the writing in the "puddi" and to the contradicting stand taken on this point by P.S.I. Terezinha and pancha Krishna whereby, according to panch a Krishna, the said writing was done by H.C. Kerkar while P.S.I. Terezinha emphatically denies that it was not so, because nothing was written on the "puddi" at the time of panchanama and, on the contrary, she clearly stated that she did not know as to who had written on the said "puddi". But, with this regard, it has been explained by Shri Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor, that from the evidence available on record it can be seen that this endorsement appears to have been put in Bombay by the Chemical Analyser for the sake of reference and to avoid mixing of the items and that this fact is also reflected in the reference number shown in the "puddi" which tallies with the number mentioned in their covering letter, dated 16-3-1990, being both “M-117/96”, enclosing the report of the findings of the tests conducted on the whitish powder wrapped in the said "puddi" and which was found to be cocaine. We are therefore satisfied that there is no discrepancy or anything fishy in this writing as prima facie it seems that Shri Chari sought to impress upon us in this aspect. 19. We are therefore satisfied that there is no discrepancy or anything fishy in this writing as prima facie it seems that Shri Chari sought to impress upon us in this aspect. 19. Similarly Shri Chari's submission that, in view of the fact of pancha Krishna having admitted that for about 18 times he stood as panch witness in various police cases, among them, as many as 12 times in drug cases and on the day of this panchanama he had taken part in another panchanama also regarding seizure of drugs and as such that could be a case of the witness being unable to properly identify the envelopes in which purportedly the drugs seized from the accused were wrapped and sealed, so much so, Krishna himself had conceded, he did not see what the police had written on the envelopes and he identified them only on the basis of his signature, we are of the opinion that this submission, although deserving consideration, in the circumstances arising out of our findings, on the point of the trustworthiness of the pancha Krishna, need not be elaborated any further. 20. Shri Chari's last submission is that it appears highly improbable that the accused who was wearing on that day a cloth waist money belt wherein, according to P.S.I. Terezinha, only charas and cocaine were kept and nothing else, even money or cigarettes, were found inside. Shri Chari rightly contended that this seems to be simply unbelievable bearing in mind that the accused, at the time she was accosted by P.S.I. Terezinha, was coming out from a bar and restaurant and only charas and cocaine was said to be discovered inside the belt. Shri Chari seems to be quite justified in his observations because, normally, no one goes to a restaurant without money and most important nobody carried with him/her drugs, namely, charas and cocaine, in such small quantities as purportedly found with the accused, without being a smoker and taking with him/her cigarettes also. In this respect we must also note that, both the accused in her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and the defence witness Simeon Ereira in his examination-in-chief, have said that the accused removed tobacco from the waist bell when she was in the jeep, without this fact having been specifically denied in the cross-examination. 21. In this respect we must also note that, both the accused in her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and the defence witness Simeon Ereira in his examination-in-chief, have said that the accused removed tobacco from the waist bell when she was in the jeep, without this fact having been specifically denied in the cross-examination. 21. Against this background and the position of the evidence relied by the prosecution, to which we have made detailed reference after a close scrutiny of its merits, Shri Bhobe's feeble attempt to impress upon us about the intrinsic credibility of both Krishna's and P.S.I. Terezinha's testimony, we are afraid, appears to be set to sail. We have, however, rejected in the beginning the contention of Shri Chari that Krishna, being apparently a "professional" pancha witness who has admittedly obliged the police for about 18 times, his evidence for this simple reason was to be disbelieved. A useful reference in this aspect may be made to the case of Amarjit Singh Cheema. v. State5 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the fact of a person having slood witness as a pancha on a number of occasions on some police stations should not by itself be a reason to discard his evidence in a narcotic drugs case. Shri Bhobe is right that the submission of Shri Chari in this regard is not sound and that a foundation were to be made by the defence, if not at least a suggestion be put to pancha Krishna, that for the reason of his having taken part in so many panchanmas for the police he, was actually pliable to them, so as to discredit the witness on this count. Therefore, the reference made by Chari regarding the doubtful value of such stock witness and the reliance placed by him on the case of Hira Lala v. State of Haryana6 appears to be entirely misplaced. 22. Shri Bhobe then urged that once the evidence of the pancha was accepted the position was that the factum of possession of drugs by the accused was also deemed to be proved. And if this was proved the rest of contradictions and small inconsistencies pointed out by the defence should be treated as just matters of detail which are not going to affect the intrinsic credibility of the-prosecution witnesses. And if this was proved the rest of contradictions and small inconsistencies pointed out by the defence should be treated as just matters of detail which are not going to affect the intrinsic credibility of the-prosecution witnesses. Shri Bhobe vehemently argued that the contradictions mentioned by Shri Chari were not of such magnitude that they could be held as sufficient to impeach the reliability of the prosecution evidence or rule out its genuineness. Shri Bhobe maintained that if there was substantial corroboration on the point of recovery of drugs from the possession of the accused, all other discrepancies should not come on the way of accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Reliance was placed by Shri Bhobe on an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 24-5-1991, in the case of Gaunter Behrim Kirdhar v. State of Goa, (Criminal Appeal No. 25/1990) in which one of us (Silva, J.) was a party and which has taken a similar view. Shri Bhobe submitted that in this case also the court should apply the same principles and hold that the so-caned contradictions would not affect the substance of the prosecution evidence. According to Shri Bhobe, the divergence should be such that it would shock the judicial conscience of the Court and the fact of P.S.I. Terezinha having not shown herself as a strightforward police officer does not mean that the recovery of drugs was false since this circumstance would only justify that the Court should be more cautious in assessing the merits of her testimony. Shri. Bhobe observed that the internal evidence on record suggests that, on the day of the occurrence, three P.S.Is. went in the same party to conduct raids at random. Each of them was concerned and concentrated only in his case. The seizure of drugs at "La Franza" bar was not made by P.S.I. Tereziriha although she might have been present on the site of the restaurant when Simeon Ereira was detained for being in possession of drugs. It is true that in chief she was not clear about this fact but in cross examination she ultimately admitted the arrest of Ereira. 23. It is true that in chief she was not clear about this fact but in cross examination she ultimately admitted the arrest of Ereira. 23. We are unable to agree with Shri Bhobe's submission that the circumstance of the police officer having proved herself to be not a straight forward person and instead a person who attempted to hide material facts from Court can be considered a trustworthy witness on whom the Court is able to depose its trust and confidence. To be noted that ours is not a case wherein P.S.I. Terezinha has simply neglected to make a mention of the raid earlier conducted by the same party at "La Franza" Bar and the consequent arrest of Simeon Ereira. If it were only that, then Shri Bhobe's line of argument could be graciously understood and accepted as good. But the evidence of P.S.I. Terezinha reveals other Wise. P.S.I. Terezinha not only skipped any reference to that earlier raid and arrest but also expressly denied in the beginning that there were other persons arrested on that day. This cannot be condoned as mere negligence on her part It amounts no doubt to deliberate effort to conceal the truth which attitude is to be strongly deprecated when coming specially from a responsible Police Officer in charge of the investigation of such serious offences concerning the spreading of drugs in the State and which are endangering in an alarming proportion the life and the future of our younger generation thus disturbing the very peace and tranquility of our people. Similarly panch a Krishna has also concealed the fact that he went first to "La Franza" bar and failed to tell the whole truth. On .the contrary he has expressly stated that he went to Calangute Police Station after 9.00 p.m. and reached there at about 9.10 p.m. and the raiding party left Calangute at about 9.30 p.m. while Simeon Ereira, in his deposition as defence witness, clearly says that he was arrested at "La Franza" between 8.00 and 8.30 p.m. and this fact was not denied by the prosecution during his cross-examination. And there seems to be no dispute that Krishna was also a panch witness in the panchanama of the seizure of drugs in Simeon Ereira's possession and his consequent arrest. And there seems to be no dispute that Krishna was also a panch witness in the panchanama of the seizure of drugs in Simeon Ereira's possession and his consequent arrest. It is therefore, irrelevant to content, as Shri Bhobe does, that simply because the fact of recovery of possession of drugs from the accused is deemed to be proved the rest of inconsistencies are inconsequential and to be summarily discharged. The argument by itself seems to involve a clear fallacy. Where there is the question of believing on the testimony of such witnesses when their whole conduct does not inspire confidence of the Court and cannot be thus considered as trust worthy? Hence it is difficult to accept that on the facts of this case the con traditions and infirmities affecting the testimony of panch a Krishna and P.S.I. Terezinha and to which we abundantly adverted above are not material or not going to have a telling effect on their own credibility. In our view this argument of Shri Bhobe is devoid of any merit and the accused is fully entitled to a clear benefit of doubt. 24. Before we part with this case we feel our duty to record our unhappiness and deep anxiety for the fact that one more good case involving the use and trade of drugs in this State has been lost apparently due to the lack of concern and genuine interest on the part of the Investigation Officer in speaking the truth in the matter. It is a matter of regret that once again the Police seems to have missed an excellent opportunity to render a good service to the society. 25. In the result we allow this appeal and accordingly quash and set aside the accused's conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, vide his judgment and Order dated 20th October 1990. The accused to be set free forthwith if she is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 613. 2. 1991 Crl.L.J. 232. 3. (1989)2 Goa Law Times-(I). 4. (1988)2 Crimes 812 . 5. 1988 Mah. L.J. 166. 6. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 35.