JUDGMENT Dr. E.S. Da Silva, J.- The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1988 who was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao for an offence under Section 20(b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-stances Act, 1985 to undergo 12 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh or, in default, to under go 1 year R.I. 2. It seems that on 30.4.1986, at 14.30 hrs. the police party accompanied by panchas raided the residential house of the appellant at Jgorjewaddo, Cortalim. During the search in the house charas weighing 2 Kgs. and 860 gills. were found in his possession. 3. On behalf of the prosecution. P. W. 1 Satish Bandekar has deposed as Panch witness. He has stated that he is hailing from Mapusa and working at Sancoale. On 30.4.1980 at about l2.55 p.m. when he was near the junction at Cortalim waiting for a bus to Panaji, he saw a police party which was including PSI Gaonkar and Dy. S.P. Dilip Kumar when he knew from Mapusa. PSI Gaonkar told that they were going to carry a raid in a house and asked him to stand as a panch witness. Among the police party there was a civilian who was the otl1er panch. Accordingly on being informed that the raid was in the house of one Andrew Fernandes at Cortalim, who is the appellant in this case, they all proceeded there in two vehicles, being on black colour Wolkawagon and the other Mahindra jeep. When they reached Andrew's house he was in the varandah and was told by Dilip Kumar about the raid for drugs. Andrew then acknowledged that he had some hams inside and look them in the kitchen wherein beneath a table there was a bag which he picked up and kept on the table. The bag was of brown colour, he had a zip which he opened and from inside removed a plastic polythene bag containing pellets which he was told to be charas out of that about 9 gms. were separated after being weighed and attached along with the rest weighing in all 2 kgs. and 860 gms. and a diary under a competent panchnama immediately drawn in the verandah of the house. were separated after being weighed and attached along with the rest weighing in all 2 kgs. and 860 gms. and a diary under a competent panchnama immediately drawn in the verandah of the house. P.W. 2 Maria Caldoira, who is the, scientific officer attached to the Foods and Drugs Laboratory of the Government of Goa, also deposed that she had done the testing of the sample received from the office of the I.G .P. in a scaled envelope with a substance weighing 14 gms. Which was found to be charas. P.W. 3, Umesh Gaonkar, who is a police Sub-Inspector posted at Mapusa Police Station like Dilip Kumar who is a Dy. S.P. and SDPO also attached to Mapusa Police Station, deposed that on 30.4.1986 when both had gone for a raid of narcotics along with Dy. S.P. Borkar from the Headquarters of police al Panaji wherein Borkar had received all information about the existence of drugs in the-house of Andrew Fernandes at Cortalim, they met the Vasco police party at a junction and headed by PSI Pinhoiro who brought along with him a civilian as panch and also P.W. 1 Satish Bandekar who was known to him at Mapusa and whom he asked to stand as other panch. Thereupon all went in two vehicles to Andrew's place and when they reached there he was in the verandah. Either Dilip Kumar or Borkar informed him of the raid of his house for narcotics and offered themselves as well as the rest of the party to be bodily searched before the raid started which he declined to do. Andrew then took them to the kitchen of the house and from undcn1ealh a small table existing therein, he removed a brown colour bag which was opened and a polythene bag containing several, balls of charas was taken out and weighed. The total weight came to be 2 kgs. 860 gms. The charas was sealed and attached along with a diary also found after a small portion was separately scaled in order to be sent to the chemical Analyser. P.W. 4 Edward Pinhciro, who is the PSI attached to Vasco Police Station, deposed that on 30.4.1986 after receiving a wireless massage from Dy. S.P. Borkar to join him and his party at 12.30 p.m. at Cortalim, he left the station with one constable and one pancha and joined the party consisting of Dy. P.W. 4 Edward Pinhciro, who is the PSI attached to Vasco Police Station, deposed that on 30.4.1986 after receiving a wireless massage from Dy. S.P. Borkar to join him and his party at 12.30 p.m. at Cortalim, he left the station with one constable and one pancha and joined the party consisting of Dy. S.P. Dilip Kumar and Dy. S.P. Borkar as well as several other constables at a junction. They were in two vehicles, being one a police car and the other a police jeep There was another person, who is the second pancha. They all went to the appellant's house, which is about 5 metres drive from Cortalim junction. There Dilip Kumar explained to the appellant that they had come to raid his house for narcotic drugs and that he could search the members of the party but he declined the offer. When he was told that they had information that he was having prohibited drugs in his house, he himself took them in the kitchen and picked up a brown bag kept below a table existing therein and put it on the table. The bag was opened and was containing balls of charas. Then the materials was brought to the varandah and being weighed it was found to be 2 kgs. 860 gms. He immediately drew a panchnama of the attachment of the substance and separately sealed in an envelope 9 gms. to be sent to the chemical Analyser while the remaining portion was scaled in the polythene bag wrapped in another envelope. The diary was also attached on that occasion. 4. The case of the appellant is of a mere denial that any raid was conducted at the house in his presence. According to him on the morning of the alleged raid he had been invited for lunch at his friend's place where a litany was going to be held on the occasion of the first Communion of his son. Accordingly sometime after 10.00 a.m. he was going to his house in company of two or three other neighbours when a jeep came there and stopped. One policeman asked him whether he know Andrew and when he identified himself as being the same he made him to sit in the jeep and brought him back home. Accordingly sometime after 10.00 a.m. he was going to his house in company of two or three other neighbours when a jeep came there and stopped. One policeman asked him whether he know Andrew and when he identified himself as being the same he made him to sit in the jeep and brought him back home. When he reached his house there were several, other policemen in the house and one of them, after he gave him his name, ordered that he be carried to the jeep in which he took him to the police station. After he was released he was informed by his family members that before he was brought back to the house the police had searched the house. 5. In support of his case the appellant examined two defence witnesses. D.W. 1 Caetano Gama has stated that on the day the appellant was arrested after being caught on the road in front or his house, i.e. 30.4.1986, there was the First Communion 01 his brother's son. He had gone to the appellant's house at about 12.30 hrs to invite him for litany, He came back on his scooter after the appellant told him that he was coming. After sometime he saw the appellant coming by fool. The police jeep came behind him and stopped. A policeman alighted from the jeep and waked to the appellant. Then the appellant was made to sit in the jeep and taken away. The jeep came from the side of the residence of the appellant. D.W. 2 Narayan Fadte has stated that he was staying in the appellant's house for four years till about five to six years ago. The house is divided into blocks by a wall separating them. He was occupying one of the blocks. There are doors on the wall separating the blocks but the doors are bolted on both the sides. On 30.4.1986 he had come from his work between 12.30 and 12.45 hours and at that time he saw policemen at the appellant's house. He was told by his daughter that the police had removed the latch on their side of one of the doors so as to enable the policemen to enter in. When they reached home the police were searching his premises in their block. The appellant was not present either at his premises or at his house. He was told by his daughter that the police had removed the latch on their side of one of the doors so as to enable the policemen to enter in. When they reached home the police were searching his premises in their block. The appellant was not present either at his premises or at his house. The policemen searched his premises and then left Thereupon he had his lunch and left back for his work at 1.30 p.m. 6. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and having regard also to defence case, found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him accordingly. 7. Shri Usgaokar, learned counsel for the appellant, while challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge firstly submitted that the evidence as a whole was not conclusive enough so as to establish beyond doubt the fact of the appellant having been found in physical possession of any narcotic drugs on the day the raid was allegedly conducted in his residential house. At the outset he urged that keeping in mind that the search was-carried on the basis of a wireless information, a serious doubt was arising as to whether the panchanama had been actually drawn or not in the appellant's house. The learned counsel took us through the evidence recorded during the trial and pointed out to a number of inconsistencies anti improbable circumstances, namely, to the P.S.I. Gaonkar's deposition wherein he has stated that the raiding party came from Panaji to search the appellant's house at Cortalim and the wireless message was flashed to P.S.I. Pinheiro of Vasco Police Station to join them in the raid only after reached the Cortalim junction, rightly contending that if it really was found that Vasco police's presence on the occasion was necessary because Cortalim lies within its jurisdiction, the normal thing would be to send the message from Panaji itself instead of the main party consisting of high Officers waiting for their subordinate officers when the opposite appears to be more appropriate. Similarly he invited our attention to the fact that both the pancho.1 were secured from outside of the place of search instead of being from the locality. He also found fault that neither Dy. S.P. Dilip Kumar or Dy. S.P. Borkar, who had apparently masterminded the raid, had been examined during the trial. Similarly he invited our attention to the fact that both the pancho.1 were secured from outside of the place of search instead of being from the locality. He also found fault that neither Dy. S.P. Dilip Kumar or Dy. S.P. Borkar, who had apparently masterminded the raid, had been examined during the trial. Also the failure of the prosecution to produce the three envelopes which should have been made available before the court as per the evidence of their witnesses particularly the one in which the polythene packet containing the bulk of the drugs found in the zip bag was scaled, the reference in the F.I.R to a diary having been found in the Zip bag which is not supported either by the panchas or other witnesss, the divergence between the deposition of the chemical Analyser who stated that the sample same for testing was weighing 14 gms. against the weight of 9 gms. as averred by all other witnesses, were all highlighted by Shri Usgaonkar us substantially affecting the credibility of the prosecution evidence in support of its case. 8. We are, however, of the view that in spite of the alleged inconsistencies, an overall assessment of the evidence available on record is sufficient to show that the drugs which the raiding party allegedly attached on 30.4.1986 were actually found at the appellant's instance and in his possession at the residential house where he was living. There is of course some inconsistent statement of P.S.I Gaonkar with regard to the wireless message sent by Dy. S.P. Borkar to the P.S.I Pinheiro and also to his arrival to Cortalim junction after or before the main raiding party reached there from Panaji. but the fact remains that this small detail is not as important as Shri Usgaokar seems to try to bring home before its and therefore, is not likely to affect the genuineness of his entire testimony which has materially corroborated the evidence of the panch witness as well as of P.S.I. Pinheiro himself. P.S.I. Gaonkar and P.S.I. Pinheiro's evidence has not been discredited at all in any manner whatsoever. P.S.I. Gaonkar and P.S.I. Pinheiro's evidence has not been discredited at all in any manner whatsoever. With the help of Shri Usgaonkar, we have scanned the entire evidence in detail and we see no reason to disbelieve the credibility of any of the prosecution witnesses who appear to have deposed, more particularly P.W. 1 pancha Bandekar, in a most sincere manner as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, on the mail1 facts of the case. 9. The contention of Shri Usgaonkar that Bandekar was from Mapusa is also irrelevant because admittedly he works at Sancoale and us such he can be said to be a local witness. Bandekar has otherwise explained his presence at the site of Cortalim junction in a most natural manner and there is no reason to doubt about his explanation. He was not even cross-examination on this point and also in respect of his having taken part in the Panchanama of attachment of the drugs. His personal respectability was not minimally attached. This means that the appellant accepted him as a respectable citizen. Therefore, the judgment of this court in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1991 purportedly involving him in a drugs case and sought to be produced by Shri Usgaonkar cannot be accepted at this stage or even taken note or. Hence, there is no motive as to why his testimony should not be accepted us reliable and true. 10. Similarly, the contradictory version of the complainant P.S.I. Pinheiro against the one of the other witnesses in respect of his finding the diary in the zip bag rather than in another room of the house is also inconsequential given the fact that the existence of the said Diary seems to be entirely irrelevant for the purpose of establishing the possession of narcotic drugs by the appellant in his residential house. In this respect we are also inclined to accept, as in the case of the presence of the Vasco police party the Site of the junction of Cortalim prior to the arrival of the Panaji police party the statement of P.S.I. Pinheiro to the effect that the Diary was actually found by him inside the zip bag as referred to in the FI.R. 11. With regard to the non-examination of either Dy. S.P. Dilip Kumar or Dy. With regard to the non-examination of either Dy. S.P. Dilip Kumar or Dy. S.P. Borkar, although it would be desirable ,that their evidence should be recorded during the trial, being any of them persons at whose instance or directions the raid appears to have been conducted, this fact however, cannot also by itself be said as directly affecting the genuineness of the evidence unfolded by the prosecution on the basis of the testimony of the remaining witnesses relied by them as material enough lo establish their case. 12. Besides PSI Goankar has said in his deposition that Dy. S.P. Borbr had told him that he (Borkar) had received some information about the existence of drugs in the house of the appellant He has also staled that Borkar informed him about the message sent to Vasco Police Station seeking their assistance. None or these statements were challenged in cross-examination. 13. Further the question of the-weight of 14 gms. found by the Chemical Alialyser ill respect of the sample of charas sent to her for testing by the police when the Investigating Officer himself and the panch wiu1esses also referred to9 gms. only is also to be viewed in a totally different context and not in a strict technical sense involving a materials contradiction which might be conducive to cast a doubt as to whether the sample examined by the said chemical Analyser was actually the same one allegedly sent to her by the police after it was attached it the site by the raiding party. We say so because apart from the circumstances of the panchnama having mentioned that a sample or about 9 gms. was removed from the polythene bag, the evidence of the other witnesses does not seem lo be also very much particular in respect of the accurate weight or the same sample admittedly taken in a small balance contrary to what happened with the Chemical analyzer who has admittedly weighed the same in a mere sophisticated scale. was removed from the polythene bag, the evidence of the other witnesses does not seem lo be also very much particular in respect of the accurate weight or the same sample admittedly taken in a small balance contrary to what happened with the Chemical analyzer who has admittedly weighed the same in a mere sophisticated scale. Besides, at one time the appellant during the cross-examination or the complainant or any other witnesses has suggested to them that the sample tested by the chemical Analyser was not the one which was allegedly taken by the Investigating Officer from the place of the road, more so when it was the case or the prosecution that this sample was duly scaled un the spot after having been put in a separate envelope. Thus there is a presumption that-the sample sent to the Chemical Analyser is the same which was scaled. The seals in the envelope where in the sample was put were found in existence and intact and this by it self is a guarantee that the contents of this envelope which is the substance of the sample is the same produced in the court. 14. With regard to the envelope which purportedly wrapped the bulk quantity of the drug substance seized and also the Diary admittedly these envelopes were put in the Zip bag after its, attachment and none of them were sent to the Chemical Analyser. It might have thus happened that during all this lime one of the envelopes was torn or destroyed. Otherwise those two envelopes were not at all material to the investigation of the case. What really important was the envelope with the sample which is the only offending exhibit. Hence, the failure to produce the aforesaid envelopes should not and cannot vitiate the case of till prosecution. 15. Shri Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor submission that there is no apparej1l or obvious purpose on the part. of the police to falsely implicate the appellant in a drug case and there should be tangible evidence to suggest that there arc reasons to believe that the police-was against/the appellant and wanted to simply involve him in (his case seems to be, therefore, quite sound and well-conceived. 16. of the police to falsely implicate the appellant in a drug case and there should be tangible evidence to suggest that there arc reasons to believe that the police-was against/the appellant and wanted to simply involve him in (his case seems to be, therefore, quite sound and well-conceived. 16. It was next submitted by Shri Usgaonkar that the alleged statements made by the appellant Andrew in the presence of the raiding party to which mention was made not only by the panch witness Bandekar but also by both P.S.I. Goankar and PSI Pinheiro acknowledges the existence of drugs in the house and thereafter taking them in the kitchen where charas was purportedly discovered in a zip bag cannot be considered as admissible in evidence since they are obviously hit under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned council urged that even conceding that drugs were actually found in the house, however, it was not possible to necessarily hold the appellant responsible for its possession. Admittedly the house from where the drugs were said to have been recovered belongs to the appellant's mother-in-law and on the relevant, day, the evidence shows that besides the appellant at least his wife and her mother were also residing in the suit house. Hence, without any thing directly linking the recovery with the appellant it could not be just concluded that the charas recovered from the residential house of the appellant were in his physical possession. Besides, the charge framed against the appellant is also silent to the effect that it does not refer the drugs were in the appellant's house wherein he was staying or that he was in its physical occupation and instead it only states that the same were found in his possession. On this sole ground, Shri Usgaonkar further urges, of a wrong and defective charge, the appellant was, entitled to acquittal. Therefore, to connect the appellant with the drugs it was necessary to rely on the so called admission which by its very nature is definitely non-admissible. On this sole ground, Shri Usgaonkar further urges, of a wrong and defective charge, the appellant was, entitled to acquittal. Therefore, to connect the appellant with the drugs it was necessary to rely on the so called admission which by its very nature is definitely non-admissible. If this bend is removed, nothing remains regarding the so called link because in view of the fact that three persons were staying in the house there was no scope to say that the appellant and the appellant alone, was in possession of the drugs so much so there is also no evidence even to suggest that the house belongs to him. 17. We are, however, unable to subscribe to, the appellant's learned counsel's submission in ' this regard. The circumstances of the charge having not been happily worded by making a specific mention to the fact of the drugs being in the appellant's house or in a house which was in his possession and physical occupation does not appear to be fatal infirmity und in our view it be construed at the most as amounting to a formal irregularity which has not caused any serious prejudice to the appellant. At no time the appellant has made any grievance that because these details are missing in the contents of the charge he was not able to understand the exact meaning, and the implication of the same on the basis of the materials supplied to him by the police alongwith the charge-sheet, namely, the panchnama of the recovery of the charas and the statements of the complainant as well as of the other witnesses relied by the prosecution. On the other hand, it was not the case of the appellant anywhere, even during the Cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, that the house was not belonging to him or was not in his exclusive possession and that he was also not the only person who was staying in the said house. Similarly the appellant also did not say OJ; suggest to any of the prosecution witnesses that the suit house was belonging and in occupation of his mother-in-law. 18. Similarly the appellant also did not say OJ; suggest to any of the prosecution witnesses that the suit house was belonging and in occupation of his mother-in-law. 18. In so far the admissibility of the alleged acknowledgement by the appellant with regard to the existence of the drugs in the house and the fact of his having personally led the raiding party to the kitchen wherein from underneath one table the appellant took out the zip bag containing a polythene pocket with charas. Shri Usgaonkar relied on the provisions of Section 27 read with sections 25 and 26 of the evidence Act. The learned counsel submitted that while sections 25 and 26 lays down; the rule regarding confessions before a police officer or any other person, section 27 caves out one exception to this rule. 19. In order to understand better the line of Shri Usgaonkar's argument a reference, to these sections is no doubt necessary. Section 25 stipulates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession by any person whilst in custody of police officer, unless is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Under section 27 when any fact is deposed to as, discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused in any offence, in the custody of a police Officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to u confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered; may be proved. It follows therefore, that the essential ingredient of Section 27 is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information while only such portion of such information distinctly Connected with the discovery is admissible against him provided that the said discovery relates to the commission of some offence. 20. 20. However, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya1, a similar situation as arising in the present case seems to have been dealt with by the Supreme Court and it was observed therein that when a person not in custody approaches a Police Officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him, he may be appropriately deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody; submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient A person directly giving to a police officer by word of mouth information which may be used as evidence against him may be deemed to have submiued himself to the 'custody' of the police officer within the meaning of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. In the instant case the appellant who was admittedly not in custody of the police officer when the raiding party went to his house allegedly conceded the existence of drugs in the house and expressed his willingness to show the place where they were kept can thus be safely said to have surrendered himself to the custody of the police at the moment he, by his action, offered to supply to the investigating officer relevant information leading to the discovery of a big quantity of chums in his possession. This action, undoubtedly amounts within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act, to the discovery of a fact having definite bearing on the charge which was subsequently Made against him. Hence, the question of his statement being hit by Section 27 and as such being inadmissible in evidence as contended by Shri Usgaollkar does not even rise at all. This being the position, the reference made by him to several other authorities, namely, to the case of Prabhou v. State of U.P.2 and Achnco Nagosia v. State of Bihar3, becomes emirely irrelevant as the aforesaid rulings, otherwise given on facts, arc not at all attracted in the case sub-judice. This being the position, the reference made by him to several other authorities, namely, to the case of Prabhou v. State of U.P.2 and Achnco Nagosia v. State of Bihar3, becomes emirely irrelevant as the aforesaid rulings, otherwise given on facts, arc not at all attracted in the case sub-judice. Similarly inappropriate appears to be the reliance placed by Shri. Usgaonbr on the decision of Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Malwrashtra4 become manifestly with regard to our case there is no evidence on record to suggest that ultimately whenever information which is said to have been given by the appellant to the Police officer refers not 10 a fact deposed and discovered but instead to the object which was actually recovered and produced. 22. The appellent was found in possession of 2 kgs. 860 gms. of charas in his residence. It is no doubt a huge quantity of drugs which seems to be definitely meant for trafficking or pending. Therefore, the extreme seriousness of this already serious offence committed by the appellant who appears to be blindly insensible to the grave consequences of this type of activities that has resulted in irremediable poisoning the life and soul of our people thus destroying the very fibre of our society, particularly the young generation which is being conteminated by the use of narcotic drugs in quite alarming proportion mood not be emphasised in order to justify the severity of the sentence which has been adequately awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge. We have therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence dated 3rd September, 1991 of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao. 23. Hence the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. -Appeal dismissed. 1. A.I.R.1960 S.C. 1125. 2. A.I.R. l963 S.C. 1113 3. A.I.R. 1966 S.C.119. 4. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1934.