JUDGMENT - G.D. KAMAT, J.:---These three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of one and the same judgment and order convicting the appellants under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 80 recorded on 31st December, 1990. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 91 was the accused No. l, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 91 was the accused No. 2 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 91 was the accused No. 3. There was another co-accused. No. 4, put up for trial but, however, he was acquitted by the teamed Sessions Judge. We will refer to the appellants as accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 the positions in which they were tried in the Sessions case. 3. The prosecution case is that there was a confidential information that accused Nos. 2 and 3 husband and wife were dealing in narcotic drugs at their residence at Calangute. A raid was therefore arranged on the morning of 2nd July, 1987, with two panchas. The raiding party was headed by Sub-Divisional Police Officer of Mapusa Police Station by name Dilip Kumar (P.W. 6). The raiding party proceeded from Mapusa and came to Calangute and stopped near a petrol pump. When they were approaching the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3 they found accused No. 1 Satish had just come out of the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3 with a cigarette packet in his hand. He was questioned by P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar as to what he was carrying. According to the prosecution story he did not answer and became nervous. A personal search of accused No. 1 was taken and in the cigarette packet that he was carrying some cigarettes and a 'pudi' containing about gm. of brown sugar were detected. On his information that the brown sugar was sold to him by a lady in the house nearby the raiding party approached the house where they accosted accused No. 2. She denied that she had sold any drug to accused No. 1 although accused No. 1 had pointed out that she was the lady who had sold the drug to him. She denied that she had sold any drug to accused No. 1 although accused No. 1 had pointed out that she was the lady who had sold the drug to him. She however produced a plastic bag from the folds of her sari alongwith some money and the raiding party discovered that there were some packets in the plastic bag which also contained the brown powder. According to the prosecution story the apprehended drugs were weighed and panchanama was prepared which was attested by panchas Rama Popa Pawar, P.W. 1 and Yacub Ali Khan, P.W. 4. On the basis of this story a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants as well as one Babli Vasu Chodankar, the father and father-in-law of accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is not understood as to how the charge as framed and found at page 31 of the paper book was at all framed that way. The story of the prosecution itself is clear that there were three separate apprehensions, one from the accused No. 1 containing a 'pudi' of about gm. and that too on a public road and the second apprehension was at the residence of accused No. 2 and 3. Indeed the prosecution story is that the apprehension from accused No. 2 was to the extent of about 17 gms., 2 gms from accused No. 3 and * gm. from accused No. 1. In our view, the charge should have separately showed these apprehensions from different accused. The charge is as if the recovery of 19 * gms of brown sugar is from joint possession of the three accused. Though we find that there is a defect in the framing of the charge it must be fairly mentioned that rightly no grievance was made as nothing turns on such a defective charge. 4. The prosecution case is sought to be proved by as many as seven prosecution witnesses which in reality consist of the so-called members of the raiding party. P.W. 6 S.D.P.O. Mapusa, Dilip Kumar was heading the raiding party consisting of P.W. 6 Babu Tamse, who is the Investigating Officer in the case and who is attached to Calangute Police Station. P.Ws. 3 and 5 are the Head Constable and Lady Constable. P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are the two panchas. P.W. 6 S.D.P.O. Mapusa, Dilip Kumar was heading the raiding party consisting of P.W. 6 Babu Tamse, who is the Investigating Officer in the case and who is attached to Calangute Police Station. P.Ws. 3 and 5 are the Head Constable and Lady Constable. P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 are the two panchas. The conviction of the appellants has been assailed in these appeals on the grounds that on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, no conviction is sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeals No. 3 of 91 and 4 of 91 i.e. for accused Nos. 2 and 3, has contended that in the first place the panchanama was drawn up at Mapusa Police Station and ex facie the panchanama itself shows the place of the execution of the panchanama. He has next pointed out that regard being had to the evidence of the panch witness and What is recorded in the panchanama it is clear that M.Cs. 4, 5, 6, and 7 namely the plastic bag which is alleged to have contained offending drugs and recovered from accused No. 2 as well as the packets containing the drugs, have not been identified at all; that the panchanama itself said to have been executed by P.W. 1 Rama Popa Pawar and P.W. 4 Yacub Ali Khan, does not say that they have signed the packets once they were apprehended and lastly Mr. Kakodkar has pointed out that a great doubt is created whether the matterial was at all weighed and, in any case, according to him the offending drug which were recovered from a black pant hanging in the varandah of the house were not at all weighed and recorded in the panchanama. He also made a grievance that P.W. 4 Yacub Ali Khan has not supported the prosecution case at all and, on the contrary, had demolished the prosecution case and the story of P.W. 1 Rama Popa Pawar who is the other panch also becomes doubtful. He next pointed out that P.W. 1 Rama Popa Pawar is a Home Guard and as such, he has to report for duty at the very Police Station at Mapusa, with the result his evidence is not credit-worthy. 5. He next pointed out that P.W. 1 Rama Popa Pawar is a Home Guard and as such, he has to report for duty at the very Police Station at Mapusa, with the result his evidence is not credit-worthy. 5. In the light of the grievance made in this appeal we have gone through the evidence of panch witnesses and also read the evidence of P.W. 6 S.D.P.O. Dilip Kumar and the evidence of P.W. 7 Babu Tamse. Nothing turns on the evidence of P.W. 3 Krishna Dessai and P.W. 5 Yamuna Arodkar who were otherwise members of the raiding party and who are the Head Constable and Lady Constable respectively, attached to the Mapusa Police Station. 6. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 6 S.D.P.O, Dilip Kumar, he says that in the month of July, 1987, he had information that accused No. 3 Ramesh and his wife accused No. 2 who are residing at Calangute were dealing in narcotic drugs and accordingly he instructed his staff to verify this fact and he found the fact to be correct. He called P.W. 1 Tamse, P.W. 7 from Calangute Police Station to Mapusa Police Station and planned a raid. After having reached Calangute according to him, he stopped his vehicle near a petrol pump at Calangute and proceeded on foot in the direction of the house of Shirodkar and when they came close to the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3 he noticed accused No. 1 Satish coming out of the house. The raiding party accosted Satish, accused No. 1, whom the witness recognized as a drug addict. He there fore inquired from him as to why he had gone to the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3 to which no answer was given by accused No. 1 and on the top of its he became nervous. He therefore conducted a search and from a cigarette packet which accused No. 1 was holding, he saw a small packet (pudi). On opening it he suspected it to be brown sugar. He now says that accused No. 1 mentioned that he purchased it from the lady of the house from which he had just got out. The raiding party when went to the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3. On opening it he suspected it to be brown sugar. He now says that accused No. 1 mentioned that he purchased it from the lady of the house from which he had just got out. The raiding party when went to the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The first person they came across was accused No. 2 who is identified by accused No. 1 as the same lady from whom be purchased the "pudi". When the raiding party inquired from her as to whether any drug was sold to accused No. 1 according to the witness, she denied the same. He then informed her that the raiding party wanted to search her house. He now says that no sooner he said this accused No. 2 Leena took out from the folds of her Sari near the naval a packet of brown sugar and some cash wrapped in a kerchief. On opening the packet they found that there were some "pudis" and some loose quantities of brown sugar in it. A personal search of accused No.2 was conducted by the Lady Constable P.W. 4, but nothing was found. Nothing was also discovered when the full search of the house was taken. The raiding party thereafter came across some clothes in the verandah and in a dark colouredpant hanging on the wall which was checked by the raiding party they detected a money purse and on opening the same some "pudis" which also contained brown sugar were discovered alongwith some cash. According to P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar, the pant was identified as the pant of accused No. 3 by his wife Leena accused No. 2. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness, but then we must point out that nowhere in his entire statement we find that Dilip Kumar has mentioned that the apprehended drugs were weighed at any time no sooner they were apprehended or any other time. There is equally no reference that the raiding party had carried any scale to weigh the drugs in the event they were to be found and apprehended. Coming to the panch witness P.W. I Rama Pawar, it must be in the first place noticed that he is a member of the Home Guards. There is equally no reference that the raiding party had carried any scale to weigh the drugs in the event they were to be found and apprehended. Coming to the panch witness P.W. I Rama Pawar, it must be in the first place noticed that he is a member of the Home Guards. He himself says that be had gone to the Mapusa Police Station on that day and according to him he is attached to Mapusa Police Station m his capacity as Home Guard. At about 12.30 hours on 2nd July, 1987 (though the reference is September) when he had gone to Mapusa Police Station, P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar asked him to accompany him and his party to Calangute. Accordingly, he sat in the jeep. There were about six or seven persons in the vehicle and on reaching near a petrol pump at Calangute they all alighted. Dilip Kumar, P.W. 6, according to him, was guiding the party to a house on the left-hand side. According to the witness when the raiding party, was near the house, they saw accused No. 1 Satish coming out from the door of the house. He was holding a cigarette packet in his hand. On seeing the police party he became nervous and therefore P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar asked him as to what be had in his hand. He now says that when search was taken some cigarettes were found in a cigarette packet alongwith a small packet wrapped in paper inside and when the packet was unwrapped P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar told the members of the raiding party that it was brown sugar. When accused No. 1 was questioned from where he purchased it he pointed out that he had brought it from the room pointing to the house of accused Nos. 2 and 3. P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar went to the door of the house and accused No. 1 pointed out towards accused No. 2 saying that she was the person who sold him the drugs. When P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar questioned accused No. 2 whether she had sold the substance to accused No. 1, according to him, she denied that and when Dilip Kumar insisted that she should tell the truth saying that he was going to check her she removed from her sari below the naval a packet wrapped in a handkerchief and gave it to him. On the packet being unwrapped be saw it contained money and a packet of plastic material. Inside the packet of plastic material there were several packets wrapped in paper. He however does not remember the number of packets. He now makes reference that the packets were weighed on the spot and the total weight of the packet carried by accused No. 2 Leena, was of 17 gms. This weight however, does not include the weight of the "pudi" in the possession of accused No. 1. The packet which was found on accused No. 1 according to him, weighed gm. The packet found with accused No. 1 was sealed in a separate cover and the packet found on accused No. 2 was sealed in another cover. He now says that he was requested to sign the sealed cover and he did so, but immediately says that this is out of his vague memory. The said covers according to him, were thereafter sealed with wax in his presence as the attachment was done in the balcony of the house. He however says that he had not gone to the interior of the house, but before the panchanama was drawn the police party had gone inside the house for checking. Referring to a long pant which was hanging in the balcony from a rope tied across, the police checked the same and from one of the pockets four small packets with the same type of substance or material were recovered. These packets were also attached according to him and when the Police Officer asked accused No. 2 to whom the pant belonged, according to him accused No. 2 said that the part belonged to her husband accused No. 3. He thereafter makes a reference to the money recovered from one of the pockets of the pant. He identifies his signature at Serial No. 2 on the lable of the pant which was attached by the police and described as M.O. 1. He also identified his signature at Serial No. 2 on M.O. 2 which was the handkerchief recovered from the possession of accused No. 2. M.O. 4 is the plastic bag and M.O. 4 the packets in which the so-called brown powder was recovered and obviously that was recovered from the possession of accused No. Leena. He also identified his signature at Serial No. 2 on M.O. 2 which was the handkerchief recovered from the possession of accused No. 2. M.O. 4 is the plastic bag and M.O. 4 the packets in which the so-called brown powder was recovered and obviously that was recovered from the possession of accused No. Leena. Though the panch witness speaks of wax seals on the packet covers, the panch witness is totally silent on the identification of M.O. 4 which is a plastic packet recovered from the person of accused No. 2 Leena, and M.O. 5 is the paper packets recovered from the plastic bag M.O. 4, which contain the offending drugs and which were in possession of accused No. 2 Leena. 7. Having seen this evidence, we now turn to the evidence of the second panch witness P.W. 4 Yacub Ali Khan. This panch witness has made the story short for the prosecution and in his short statement in examination-in-chief he says that at about two years back during one morning he had gone to the Mapusa Police Station to meet one police by name Razak. He found that some officers were ready to go in a jeep and P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar was already in the jeep. He was asked to sit in the jeep to accompany them. He now says that he was the only civilian in the said jeep and all others were police constables. From Mapusa, according to him, they went to a house in Calangute and there they came across a male person. Before however they had reached the house the police jeep had stopped near the petrol pump at Calangute and they walked towards the house of accused No. 4 Babali, who was in the verandah of that house. A personal search of Babali was taken but nothing was found, but after his body was searched a police brought some money and gave it to him. He say that thereafter accused No. 2 was checked by the lady constable and after checking her some money was brought and handed over to him. He thereafter makes a reference to the panchanama being written in Police Station and according to him the panchanama was signed by him, which is Exh. P.W. 1/B. He identities his signature on the relevant pages of the panchanama. He thereafter makes a reference to the panchanama being written in Police Station and according to him the panchanama was signed by him, which is Exh. P.W. 1/B. He identities his signature on the relevant pages of the panchanama. Justifiably perhaps, this panch witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the defence. 8. We have read the panchanama Exh. P.W. l/B which is at page 39 of the paper book. The panchanama itself starts:---- "Mapusa Police Station Date : 2-7-1987." On the panchanama nowhere it is mentioned that the panchas have signed the envelopes which contained the apprehended drugs and though there is some oral evidence of the panchas that they had signed the envelopes the contemporaneously drawn panchanama does not say so. Mr. Kakodkar is Justified in saying that the panchanama itself suggests that it was drawn up at Mapusa Police Station and not at the place where the offending drugs were apprehended. Though Mr. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor tried to justify the writing on the panchanama showing Mapusa Police Station and the date by saying that when panchas are called the first part, of the panchanama is written in the Police Station before the raid starts by making reference to the panchas and thereafter completed after the raid is over and the purpose of the raid is achieved, it must be seen that panch witness No. 2 Yacub Khan has clearly mentioned in the oral evidence that the panchanama had been drawn at Mapusa Police Station after the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been searched and he had put his signature at Mapusa Police Station. We have already referred to the evidence of the second panch witness Yacub Khan and we must point out that he is not credit-worthy and it is unbelievable that everytime some recovery of money is made the police will give him some as mentioned by him. He also otherwise does not deserve credence so far as evidence is concerned, because he makes no reference to the apprehension of drugs from accused No. 1. Mr. Kakodkar also seems to be fully justified when he points out that the evidence of the first panch witness namely P.W. I Rama Pawar has to be appreciated with a pinch of salt because he is a Home Guard and what is more is attached to the Mapusa Police Station. It is no doubt pointed out by Mr. Mr. Kakodkar also seems to be fully justified when he points out that the evidence of the first panch witness namely P.W. I Rama Pawar has to be appreciated with a pinch of salt because he is a Home Guard and what is more is attached to the Mapusa Police Station. It is no doubt pointed out by Mr. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor, that merely because a panch witness happens to be a Home Guard and for the reason that he is attached to the Police Station is no ground for rejecting his evidence and he points out that in one of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court the evidence of a Home Guard who was a panch witness in that case had been accepted. There is however a difference. In the first place it must be seen that P.W. 1 Rama Pawar is attached to Mapusa Police Station and on prior information a raid was sought to be made to search the house and persons of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and that is because there was prior information that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were dealing in drugs. Since the raid was pre-arranged and not sporadic, it was possible for P.W. 6 Dilip Kumar to have arranged some independent panch witnesses. Therefore, taking a member of the Home Guards who was attached to his Police Station shows also some sort of doubt. We would have still considered accepting the evidence of P.W. 1 Rama Pawar but then as we have mentioned earlier, the recovery alleged to have been made from accused No. 2 Leena becomes doubtful. In the first place, it is accused No. 1 who is the co-accused in the case, who pointed out that accused No. 2 sold to him the drugs and the further story is that then she was threatened that she would be searched she produced a plastic packet from the folds of sari alongwith some money and this was apprehended. It is common ground that barring some packets from the pockets of the pant which was hanging in the open verandah, no offending drugs were found and recovered from the house. The statement made by co-acused pointing out accused No. 2 that she sold the offending drugs was obviously made to the Police Officer and cannot be accepted and relied upon in evidence. The statement made by co-acused pointing out accused No. 2 that she sold the offending drugs was obviously made to the Police Officer and cannot be accepted and relied upon in evidence. What is worse for the prosecution now is that the plastic packet which is M.O. 4 is not at all identified either by panch P.W. 1 Rama Pawar or P.W. 4 Yacub Khan. Same is the story of M.O. 5 which contained the offending drugs and which were found in M.O. 4 a plastic packet. Therefore, the offending drugs arc not at all identified. Though the panchas have clearly admitted that they put their signatures on the cover or envelopes, there is no reference in the panchanama that they had signed the envelopes. It is not necessary to emphasize that though the panchanama is only a corroborative evidence it is indeed a contemporaneous evidence and must speak and corroborate the oral evidence of the witness. This is exactly what is not happening in the present case. The recovery therefore, insofar as the accused No. 2 Leena is concerned, fails. 9. Coming to the recovery of a packet from one of the pockets of the black pant hanging in the verandah, it must be mentioned that it is accused No. 2 who slated that the pant belonged to her husband. There is no legal evidence on record to suggest that the pant which was hanging on a rope in an open verandah belonged to accused No. 3 Ramesh. The only so-called evidence pointed out that this pant belonged to accused No. 3 has come from accused No. 2 Leena. This statement was obviously made by Leena who is a co-accused, to a Police Officer, which is therefore liable to be discarded as inadmissible evidence. The other aspect is that the pant was hanging in the open verandah and it is impossible to convict the accused No. 3 merely because the pant is stated to be belonging to him because what is required by law for recording conviction is conscious possession. 10. We have also seen the evidence of P.W. I Rama Pawar in relation to the recovery said to have been made from one of the pockets of the pant which was hanging. In fact P.W. 1 Rama Pawar has not said that he has seen the recovery. 10. We have also seen the evidence of P.W. I Rama Pawar in relation to the recovery said to have been made from one of the pockets of the pant which was hanging. In fact P.W. 1 Rama Pawar has not said that he has seen the recovery. All that he has said is that the police found some packets in one of the pockets of the pant which they took out. It is equally in evidence that this witness had mentioned that he had not gone to the interior of the house and he had been standing outside. This being the tell-tale again throws doubt on the recovery of the so-called packets from one of the pockets of the pant. 11. Now coming to the recovery of one "pudi" from a cigarette packet which was held by accused No. 1 Satish, the same deficiencies which are pointed out in relation to the recovery from accused No. 2 will have to be held to apply to this recovery, inasmuch as he panchanama does not disclose that after the recovery these packets were put in an- envelope which was sealed and signed by them. One thing we would however like to point out and that is that the recovery from accused No. 1 was on the public load and it was otherwise separate from whatever recovery was made from either accused No. 2 or from the pant. It is not understood as to why no separate panchanama was made no sooner the alleged drug was apprehended from accused No. 1. What however remains is the recovery of money. The recovery of money by itself cannot connect him to the offending drugs. When we have rejected the prosecution evidence insofar as the evidence of the panchas is concerned, nothing need be stated on the aspect of recovery of money. There is again doubt as to whether this small quantity of drugs recovered from accused No. 1 was at all weighed. It is therefore, not necessary to go into the other aspects of the matter and as indeed pointed out by Mr. Kakodkar P.W. 7 Babu Tamse, in his evidence has not even mentioned any other aspect. We are unable to sustain the convictions and the sentences recorded by the learned Session Judge. It is therefore, not necessary to go into the other aspects of the matter and as indeed pointed out by Mr. Kakodkar P.W. 7 Babu Tamse, in his evidence has not even mentioned any other aspect. We are unable to sustain the convictions and the sentences recorded by the learned Session Judge. We allow all the three appeals, set aside and quash the convictions and sentences made against them and all the appellants are acquitted. Bail bonds of appellants Ramesh Shirodkar (accused No. 3) and Leena Shirodkar (accused No. 2) are directed to be cancelled. Appellant Satish Bandekar (accused No. 1) to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Fine if paid to be refunded. Appeal allowed. -----