JUDGMENT (ORAL) Savant J. - This appeal presents a very sorry state of affairs and despite this Court having repeatedly expressed its concern about the growing menace of drugs spreading in Goa, we are disturbed to say that the manner in which the investigation was carried out leaves much to be desired. What is really unfortunate is that the Court is totally helpless in a situation where even the elementary norms required to be observed are thrown to winds the person of the accused in which there was a chillum. This search was around 12 noon on 21st December 1990. The panchanama Ex. P.W. 2/A was drawn between 1.15 to 2.20 p.m. on the same day. The two panchas are Sunil Pednekar and Vefikatesh Naik, out of whom the latter has been examined as P.W. 2. The accused was then taken to the Calangute Police Station where the complaint was lodged by P.W: 3 Dias which complaint is at Ex. P.W. 3/A. This has been registered as C.R. No. 143 of 1990, at about 3.00 p.m. on 21st December, 1990. 4. It appears that the accused was detained at the Calangute Police Station where his formal arrest Was recorded. There is, however, some controversy about the exact duration for which the accused was detained at the Calangute Police Station. He was thereafter brought to the Anti Narcotics Cell (for short "the A.N.C.") at Panaji. As far as the articles seized from the accused were concerned, the same are brought to the A.N.C. on 21st December, 1990. That was a Friday. Saturday and Sunday were holidays. On Monday the 24th December 1990 the articles seized were forwarded by P.W. 3 Dias to the police inspector A.N.C. Panaji" for further transmission to the Drugs, Controller, Combined Food and Drugs Laboratory, Panaji - Goa. In fact the letter of A.N.C. 2. The appeal is against the judgment and order bf conviction and sentence recorded on 26th June 1992 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1991 decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji. Under the impugned order the appellant has been convicted of the offences punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Dugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the N.D.P.S. Act") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. Under the impugned order the appellant has been convicted of the offences punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Dugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the N.D.P.S. Act") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution case stated briefly is as under: 3. On Friday the 21st December 1990, P.S.I. Serafin Dias, who is P.W. 3, attached to the Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji left along with the police party and panchas in a jeep at about 12 noon for a random narcotic check at Anjuna. On reaching Anjuna, he noticed the accused coming on a motor-cycle. P.S.I. Dias suspected him to be in possession of drugs. The accused was, therefore, stopped and was told that he was to be searched for having drugs in his possession. The accused, however, denied to have possessed any drugs. On the search of the accused in the presence of the panchas, it appears that in the fold of his pyjama type pant a polythene packet was recovered which was said to contain charas weighing 15 grams. The passport of the accused was also attached. A cotton bag was found on Panaji is dated 21st December 1990 but since the raiding party reached A.N.C. Panaji late in the afternoon on 21st December 1990 and since 22nd and 23rd December 1990 were Saturday and Sunday and were, therefore, holidays, it appears that the seized articles were forwarded for the first time on Monday the 24th December 1990 from A.N.C., Panaji to the S.P.C.I.D., Panaji. Tuesday the 25th December 1990 was holiday due to Christmas. It further appears from the report of P.W. 1 Ms. Maria Calderia the Junior Scientific Officer, that the S.P.C.I.D. panaji forwarded the said sample on 26th December 1990 and the analysis took place on 16th January 1991. It was found on applying the Beam's Acid test that the sample contained charas. 5. On these facts the charge-sheet was filed on 18th January 1991. The accused was consequently charged with the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The accused denied the said charge and pleaded that he was not guilty of the said offence. It was found on applying the Beam's Acid test that the sample contained charas. 5. On these facts the charge-sheet was filed on 18th January 1991. The accused was consequently charged with the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The accused denied the said charge and pleaded that he was not guilty of the said offence. According to the accused, he was admittedly a drug addict and was smoking charas for the last about 5 to 6 years but he had not distributed charas to anyone. He was denied that any charas was found on his person when he was searched on Friday the 21st December 1990 as alleged. He has categorically stated that at the time of search he had demanded that he should be taken before the Magistrate since he had learnt about his rights in his behalf, in an earlier mater when he was arrested for a similar offence in connection with which he was on bail in, December 1990. It may incidentally be mentioned here that in the said case No. 69 of 1991 the accused has been convicted of the offences punishable under section 27(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - on August 29, 1992. The accused has specifically denied that he was searched in presence of the panchas. He did contend that he had purchased 112 tolas (5 grams) of charas a couple of days earlier for Rs. 801- and had smoked most of it. He used to keep charas in a small packet along with the chillum and if at all any charas was recovered from out of the aid 5 grams which he had bought earlier, it was for his personal consumption and was not for sale or distribution. He thus pleaded not guilty of the charge framed against him. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined the Junior Scientific Officer Ms. Maria Calderia, P.W. 1. She proved the analytical report at Ex. P.W. 11A dated 17th January 1991. Panch Venkatesh Naik was examined as P.W. 2 i.e. prove the panchanama-Ex. P.W. 21 dated 21st December 1990 and finally the investigating officer P.S.I. Dias was examined as P.W. 3 who proved the complaint Ex. P.W. 3/A which he had lodged on 21st December 1990 at the Calangute Police Station. P.W. 11A dated 17th January 1991. Panch Venkatesh Naik was examined as P.W. 2 i.e. prove the panchanama-Ex. P.W. 21 dated 21st December 1990 and finally the investigating officer P.S.I. Dias was examined as P.W. 3 who proved the complaint Ex. P.W. 3/A which he had lodged on 21st December 1990 at the Calangute Police Station. Apart from the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused filed his written statement and examined P.S.I. Subhash Goltekar as D.W. 1. Evidence of Subhash Goltekar D.W. 1 shows that the accused was arrested at Calangute police station on 21st December 1990 and his name was entered in the arrest register of Calangute Police -Station. However, D.W. l Goltekar is categoric in his assertion that the accused was not kept in the police lock-up of Calangute police station and, therefore, his name was no shown in the police lock-up register on 21st December 1990 or even thereafter. On the question of sentence the accused examined himself to the effect that be was a drug addict and user of charas for the last abouts to 6 years but he maintained that he had never distributed charas to any one. 7. On this evidence the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish the recovery of 15 grams of charas and a chillum from the possession of the accused. In the opinion of the learned sessions Judge, the evidence of the panch witness Naik and P.S.I. Dias regarding the search and recovery was acceptable. If there were any minor embellishments in their evidence, they were in the nature of mere irregularities which had caused no prejudice to the accused and which, therefore, did not vitiate the trial or result in failure of justice. Relying upon the observations of the Supreme Courting the case of H.N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi1, and several other decisions in that behalf, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that after all the function of investigation was merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the course of Such collection of evidence can scarcely be considered, by itself, to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise' competent Court. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, took the view that since the non compliance with some of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act had caused no prejudice to the accused, the trial was not vitiated. He also took the view that objection. in respect of the failure to comply with some of the provisions was taken at the fag end of the trial which factor was relevant for deciding the issue as to whether any prejudice had been caused to the accused. He brushed aside the minor inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as being hallmarks of truth of their testimony. In the result, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused of the offences of which he was charged and sentenced him as above. 8. Shri Lalit Chari the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has seriously challenged the conviction on several grounds. First and foremost, Shri Chari contends that on the evidence on record it is clear that when the search was taken and the articles were seized, only one lot of charas was put in the envelope. P.W. 3 Dias says that when the portion of the pant which was folded was searched, only one polythene packet was found in which there was charas. The exact words of P.W. 3 Dias are as under: "The said portion had the hemming which was folded and from inside the fold-one polythene packet was found in which there was charas. The said pyjama at the waist level had been folded outwardly and the polythene packet was found near the navel portion of the said pyjama." Panch witness Naik P.W. 2 also says that one piece of charas wrapped in plastic was found which was weighing 15 grams after it was weighed. Panchanama Ex. P.W. 2/A reads as under: "P.S.I. Serafin Dias then conducted the search of me foreigner and in the multi-coloured pyjama type pant he was wearing in the hemming near the waist line charas was found-concealed which was removed. The charas was wrapped in a polythene." As against this, however, Shri Chari contends that, when the sample reached the Junior scientific Officer P.W. 1 Ms. Calderia and when she opened the envelope, she found that it was containing 14.320 grams of substance and which was wrapped in two separate lots in two separate polythene papers. The exact words of P.W. 1 Ms. Calderia and when she opened the envelope, she found that it was containing 14.320 grams of substance and which was wrapped in two separate lots in two separate polythene papers. The exact words of P.W. 1 Ms. Calderia are as under: "I opened the said envelope and found that it was containing 14.320 grams of a substance in the form of two sticks and one small piece of irregular shape sticking together and wrapped in polythene paper. There were also two circular pieces, one big and one small sticking together and wrapped in another polythene paper." The analytical report prepared by P.W. 1 Ms. Calderia which is at Ex. P.W. 1/A gives the description of the packing as under: "One sealed pinkish paper envelope bearing the particulars given below and containing 14.320 gms. of the sub stance in the form of two sticks and one small piece of irregular shape sticking together and wrapped in polythene paper and two circular pieces (one big and one small) sticking together arid wrapped in another polythene. paper was received by this Laboratory under the above reference. The seal fixed on the envelope tallied with the seal impression separately sent along with the reference letter." Shri Chari, therefore, contended that there is no identity of the material that was seized from the person of the accused with the, material that ultimately reached the laboratory. Whereas both, panch witnesses Naik and P.W. 3 Dias categorically say that what was found on the person of the accused was charas in one polythene packet and that, that polythene packet was seized, what has been found on opening the envelope in the laboratory are two lasts wrapped in two separate polythene papers. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the integrity of the sealing has been totally lost and the prosecution has failed to establish that what was found with the accused was the very material which was tested in the laboratory and was found to be charas. In support of this contention Shri Chari invited our attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamruddin Jamaluddin Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra2. 9. In support of this contention Shri Chari invited our attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamruddin Jamaluddin Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra2. 9. Shri Chari secondly contended that there is a breach of the mandatory provisions of subsection (3) of section 52 of the Act which required that every person arrested and articles seized under the warrant issued under sub-section (2) of sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 should be forwarded, without un-necessary delay, to the officer in charge of the nearest police station. He further contended that as a result of P.S.I. Dias having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (3) of section 52 compliance of subsection (4) of section 52 has been rendered impossible and similarly section 55 has been frustrated. Sub-section (4) of section 52 requires the police officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 52 shall, with all convenient des patch, take Such measures as may be necessary for' the disposal according to law of Such person or article. Section 55 requires the police to take charge of the articles seized and delivered to him. In this connection Shri Chari has contended that it is also necessary that the investigating officer has to be different from the officer who carried out the search. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Gholtu Modi and ete. v. State of Bihar3, where the Court has expressed a view ,that the informant should not be the investigating officer since he is unlikely to be impartial. The informant while investigating the case normally makes strenuous efforts to collect evidence in support of his own version and may be anxious to get laurels at the end of the trial. Shri Chari has also invited our attention to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Nathiya and another v. The State4 and relying upon the observations in para 11 of the judgment at page 541 of the report, Shri Chari contended that the officer involved in recovery of the contraband charas should not be the officer who investigates Such a crime and Such investigation would basically be bad. 10. 10. Thirdly, Shri Chari contended that in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it was the duty of the investigating officer to have informed the accused that he could demand that he should be taken to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. Shri Chari contended that the case of the accused is categoric on the point that since he was earlier involved in a case of possession of charas, he was aware of his rights and demanded that he should be taken to the nearest Magistrate, which was not done. Shri Chari invited our attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajkumar Ramchandra Sahu and another v. State of Maharashatra5. This was a case where the investigating officer admitted that the accused had demanded that he be taken to the nearest Magistrate but the officer had given an excuse that he had no time to do so. The Division Bench of this Court found that the excuse treated by the Investigating Officer was hopelessly lame and there was failure to comply with the mandate of section 50. 11. Fourthly, Shri Chari commented upon the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 3 Dias in respect of the question as to whether the accused was kept in the lock-up at Calangute Police Station on 21st December 1990. He placed reliance on the evidence of D.W. 1 Subhash Goltekar and contended that the evidence of P.W. 3 Dias was false. P.W. 3 Dias does say that the accused was kept in Calangute Police Station but clarifies the same by saying that it may be for a day. Dias does not remember if the accused was taken out from Calangute Police Station on the day of his arrest or on the subsequent day. He does not even remember as to whether he was brought before the Magistrate from Calangute Police Station or from Panaji Police Station. 12. Fifthly Shri Chari contended that there is failure, to comply with the provisions of subsection (7) of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in as much as the only important document on the search being completed was the panchanama Ex. P.W. 2/A dated 21st December 1990. 12. Fifthly Shri Chari contended that there is failure, to comply with the provisions of subsection (7) of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in as much as the only important document on the search being completed was the panchanama Ex. P.W. 2/A dated 21st December 1990. No copy bf this panchanama was given to the accused which according to the learned Counsel ought to have been given in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Shri Chari invited our attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Genu Yeshwat Divate, P.S.I. Ahmednagar Police6 where a view has been expressed that if the panchanama was drawn on the spot as alleged, a copy of the same should be given to the accused immediately on the spot. Shri Chari also invited our attention to another decision of a Division' Bench of this Court to which one of us (Dr. E.S. Da Silva J.) was, a party, namely, the decision in the case of Shankar Raju Banglormr v. State of. Goa7 where a similar view has been expressed on a consideration of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Finally Shri Chari contended that, in the first place, the provisions of sections 50 and 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act were mandatory and so are the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assuming, however, that it was held to be directory, it is not open to the Trial Court to fall back upon the provisions of section 465 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying upon the provisions of section 465 of the said Code, the learned Counsel contends that it is only the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision which may not reverse or alter the finding or sentence or order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction unless in the opinion of that Court, meaning thereby the Court of appeal, combination one vision, a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned thereby. The learned Counsel urged that resort to section 465 can be had only by the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision and not by the Trial Court, in the very nature of the scheme of the provisions of section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this behalf he sought to rely upon a passage in Rishbud's case (supra) and particularly on the observations in para 10 at page 204 of the report. He also invited our attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Parasnath Pande and another v. State8 wherein the observations of the Supreme Court in Rishbud's case were considered in paras 8 and 9 at pages 211 and 212 of the report. 14. As against the above contentions of Shri Chari, Shri Bhobe the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is nothing wrong with the sanctity or integrity of the sealing of the envelope which contained the contraband charas. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that, in the first place, sealing is not a requirement of any law but it is only to ensure the identity of the articles seized with the identity of the sample analysed that the sealing is resorted to Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel preferred to rely upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Ms. Calderia who was categoric that what was found in the sealed envelope was 14.320 gms of substance containing charas. He contended that when the raiding party weighed the substance it was found to be 15 grams. However, when P.W. 1 Calderia weighed the same in his laboratory, perhaps in a more scientific way, it was found to be 14.320 grams. He has given two explanations as to how the discrepancy of 1 or 2 lots has occurred. According to Shri Bhobe, the substance was sticky substance wrapped in a polythene packet. It may be that there were two polythene papers holding the entire substance which subsequently got separated into two separate polythene papers holding two separate lots. The second explanation is that after finding of the charas in the pyjama type pant which the accused was wearing a cloth bag was recovered from the accused which contained, the chillum. The accused has admitted that he is a drug addict and had purchased 5 grams of charas a few days ago for his own consumption. The second explanation is that after finding of the charas in the pyjama type pant which the accused was wearing a cloth bag was recovered from the accused which contained, the chillum. The accused has admitted that he is a drug addict and had purchased 5 grams of charas a few days ago for his own consumption. It may be, contends Shri Bhobe, that some charas might have been found in the chillum and that constitutes the second lot wrapped in a separate polythene paper. It may be that P.S.I. Dias did not carefully notice, while sealing the envelope, that there were two separate lots of charas wrapped in two separate polythene papers. While preparing the panchanama and carrying out the sealing on the spot, this might have escaped the attention of P.W. 3 Dias as also of P.W. 2 panch Naik. 15. Shri Bhobe did contend that the seals on the envelope were found to be intact by P.W. 1 Ms. Calderia. He also explained the delay in the sample travelling from the A.N.C. to the laboratory on account of the fact that the raiding party had reached the ANC, Panaji late in the afternoon of 21st December 1990. This was clear from the fact that the panchanama was completed by 2.45 p.m. and the complaint at Calangute Police Station had been lodged at about 3 p.m. after which the raiding party came to A.N.C. Panaji. Since Saturday 22nd December 1990 and Sunday the 23rd December 1990 were holidays the sample was despatched on Monday the 24th December 1990 to the S.P. C.I.D. from where it was despatched to the laboratory on Wednesday the 26th December 1990. This was so because Tuesday the 25th December, page was a holiday on account of X-mas. We will deal with this contention of Shri Bhobe and refer to the very un-satisfactory manner of the sealing which has a bearing on the conclusions that we are arriving. Suffice it to say at this stage that the sealing of the envelope marked Ex. "B" in which the two lots of charas were found is wholly un-satisfactory, and is carried out in a very casual way. 16. In reply to the second contention of Shri Chari, Shri Bhobe contends that, in the first place, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 52 are merely directory and not mandatory. "B" in which the two lots of charas were found is wholly un-satisfactory, and is carried out in a very casual way. 16. In reply to the second contention of Shri Chari, Shri Bhobe contends that, in the first place, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 52 are merely directory and not mandatory. In any case he says that there is a substantial compliance with the said provisions of sub-section (3) of section 52. Shri Bhobe contends that the accused was taken to Calangute police station and the complaint has been lodged as early as at 3 p.m. on 21st December 1990 which was registered as C.R. No. 143 of 1990. Shri Bhobe further contended that the station diary entry No. 22/90 of Calangute Police Station also supports the version of P.W. 3 Dias that he had complied with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 52. Even the evidence of D.W. 1 Goltekar does confirm, according to Shri Bhobe, the arrest of the accused at Calangute Police station in the afternoon of 21st December 1990. Hence Shri Bhobe contends that there is substantial compliance with the provisions of sections 52(3) and 52(4). 17. Shri Bhobe then contended that in any case the failure to comply with the provision of sub-section (3) of section 52 cannot vitiate the trial and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused. In this behalf Shri Bhobe invited our attention to the decision of this Court reported in the case of Abdul Sattar s/o. Ahamed Sattar v. The State9. He relied upon the observations appearing in para 12 of the judgment at page 397 of the report, to the effect that the prosecution is indeed mutely bound to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge framed against the accused, and once Such burden is discharged, even if there is any procedural omission, Such omission does not vitiate the proceedings. Shri Bhobe next relied upon the decision in the case of Hemant Vyankatesh Agwan v. State of Maharashtra10. He particularly invited our attention to the observations in para 7 of the judgment at page 437 of the report where on consideration of the provisions of sections 42, 50.55 and 57 the Court expressed the view that failure to comply with some Such provisions would not necessarily vitiate the trial. He particularly invited our attention to the observations in para 7 of the judgment at page 437 of the report where on consideration of the provisions of sections 42, 50.55 and 57 the Court expressed the view that failure to comply with some Such provisions would not necessarily vitiate the trial. Shri Bhobe also invited our attention to the decision delivered by one of us (Dr. E.S. Da Silva J.) in the case of Rodney E. Joseph v. State of Goa11 being Criminal Misc. Application No. 134 of 1992 decided on 28th August 1992 where on a review of the entire case law, this Court took the view, that after all the function of the investigation is merely to collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality: in the course of collection of evidence can hardly be considered, by itself, to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise competent court. It was further held that the contravention of the mandatory provisions of the concerned statute during the investigation of an offence does not, by itself, vitiate the trial and what has to be seen is whether the non-compliance of the said provisions has caused any prejudice to the accused. Relying upon these 3 decisions Shri Bhobe contended that the second contention of Shri Chari has no merit. 18. On the third contention raised by Shri Chari regarding the failure to comply with the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act Shri Bhobe contended that all that sub-section (1) of section 50 requires is that, if the accused so demands, he should be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate. Shri Bhobe relied upon the evidence of P.W. 3 Dias who deposed that he had told the accused that his personal search was to be taken and that he was free to check the raiding party but since the accused maintained that he was not having any drugs, he informed P.W. 3 Dias that he did not want to check the raiding party. It is true that .in the cross-examination, P.W. 3 Dias has deposed that he had told the accused that he could be taken to the Magistrate for his personal search but Dias, deposed that this fact has not been recorded in the panchanama since the accused maintained that he had no drugs. It is true that .in the cross-examination, P.W. 3 Dias has deposed that he had told the accused that he could be taken to the Magistrate for his personal search but Dias, deposed that this fact has not been recorded in the panchanama since the accused maintained that he had no drugs. Shri Bhobe, therefore, contends that the accused did not demand that he should be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. In this view of the matter, Shri Bhobe invited our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Sureshkumar Khandewal v. State12. In para 12 of the judgment at page 8 of the report, Dr. G.F. Couto J, observed that although it was advisable for the Police Officer to inform the person sought to be searched about his right to be taken to the nearest Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, nonetheless, the mandate of the said provision of law is restricted only to the information to be given to the person to be searched that he is intended to be search for drugs. Shri Bhobe also invited our attention to the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Wilfred Joseph Dawood Lema v. State of Maharashtra13. He invited our attention to the observations in para 9 of the judgment at page 1038 of the report. In Wilfred Lema's case the argument was that since the appellant was a foreign national and know little of English, the police should have informed him that he had a right under section 50 to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. The Division Bench in terms rejected this submission and observed that there was nothing in section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to suggest that the Police Officer taking search of the foreign national is duty bound to inform him that, if he so desired, he shall be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Shri Bhobe then invited our attention to the decision of, this Court in the case of Shri Shakal Abdul Gaffor v. Union of India and another14 in support of his contention that there is no duty cast upon the investigating officer to inform the accused of his having a right to approach the Gazetted Officer for the purpose of his search. 19. 19. On the fourth contention raised by Shri Chari, Shri Bhobe contended that the evidence of P.W. 3 Dias was worthy of credence and assuming that there was some discrepancy about the entry in the lock up register, there was no controversy that the accused was arrested at the Calangute Police Station in the afternoon of Friday the 21st December, 1990 and that the name of the accused was entered in the arrest register of Calangute Police Station in token of his having been arrested on 21st December, 1990. According to Shri Bhobe, the contradiction between the deposition of P.W. 3 Dias on the one hand and D.W. 1 Goltekar on the other, was not Such as to doubt the credibility of P.W. 3 Dias. 20. On the fifth contention of Shri Chari regarding failure to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Shri Bhobe contended that though it is not clear from the panchanama that copy thereof was furnished to the accused forthwith, it is clear that on the charge-sheet being submitted the accused was furnished with the copies of all the police papers. Relying upon the judgments referred to above, including the judgment delivered by Dr. Da Silva J. in the case of Rodhey E. Joseph (supra), Shri Bhobe contended that at any rate mere delay in furnishing the copy of the panchanama would not vitiate the trial since no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused nor is any failure of justice alleged to have been occurred. 21. Though both the learned Counsel have argued the matter at length, we are afraid, the appeal can be disposed of on the first point itself and it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on any of the other contentions raised by Shri Chari and Shri Bhobe. Reverting to the first contention of Shri Chari, there is no doubt in our mind that when the search was taken and the contraband was seized, both panch witness P.W. 2 Naik and Investigating Officer P.W. 3 Dias are clear in their minds that only one polythene packet was found in which there was charas and it was that polythene packet which was seized from the navel portion of the Pyjama. It is true that in a separate cloth bag the chillum was found but neither the panchanama nor the two witnesses have referred to the presence of any charas in the chill urn or in the cloth bag in which the chillum was found. The panchanama says that charas was wrapped in a polythene. P.W. 3 Dias is very specific that he found one polythene packet in which there was charas. As against this, P.W. 1 Calderia is very clear in her deposition that when she opened the envelope, she found two lots of charas in two separate polythene papers. In one she found charas in the form of two sticks and one small piece of irregular shape sticking together and in another polythene paper she found two circular pieces, one big and one small sticking together. She has elaborated this in her examination-in-chief after referring to the very un-satisfactory sealing found on the envelope. She says that inside the said envelope she found three fiat pieces of dark brownish substance - two pieces are sticking to each other. The said 3 pieces were wrapped in a polythene paper. She further says that in another polythene paper, she found many broken pieces of mostly, roundish shape. We have examined the envelope which has been marked as Ex. B. P.W. 1 Colderia has referred to the sealing on the said envelope which was found to be thoroughly unsatisfactory and seems to have been made in a very casual manner. The seal "A" was broken and was not intact. Seal "B" was broken. Seal "C" was also broken to a substantial extent. As far as seal "D" is concerned there was only-an impression of the seal with a very small portion of the seal found. As far as seals "E" and "F" were concerned, there were only impressions of the seal but there were no seals at all. As against this sealing done by the police, we have examined the envelope Ex. A which P.W. 1 Calderia sealed after she analysed the samples and put the envelope Ex. B sent by the police in the said envelope. Ex. A which she sent from the laboratory . We find all the five seals put in the laboratory in an intact position, apart from the fact that during the trial the seals have Peen covered with a transparent adhesive tape. B sent by the police in the said envelope. Ex. A which she sent from the laboratory . We find all the five seals put in the laboratory in an intact position, apart from the fact that during the trial the seals have Peen covered with a transparent adhesive tape. We also examined the seals put during the course of the trial on the bigger envelope in which envelope Ex. B sent by the police and envelope Ex. A sent from the laboratory to the police were kept. A bare perusal of the seals put by the police on the one hand and the seals put either by the laboratory staff or by the staff of the Trial Court on the other, would show that unfortunately the police have resorted to the press of sealing as an empty formality in a very casual and, if we may say so, most careless manner. We are commenting upon this because Shri Chari is right in his contention that if the police found one lot of charas and if the panchanama and the two witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Naik and P.W. 3 Dias are categoric in their assertion of finding of one lot in a polythene paper, it is not understood how P.W. 1 Calderia would find two distinct lots of charas packed in two separate polythene papers inside the envelope which had been so poorly sealed. If there was no Such glaring inconsistency in the finding of the two lots of charas inside and if the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 on the one hand were to be consistent with the evidence of P.W. 1, we may have ignored the shabby and careless manner in which the sealing was done. But in the light of the serious contention raised by Shri Chari, we cannot ignore the casual and thoroughly un-satisfactory manner in which the samples of charas were sealed. It may not be - out of place to mention that the samples remained with the police from Friday the 21st December 1990 to Wednesday the 26th December 1990. What is more important is that P.W. 3 Dias himself carried out the raid and the search and is himself the investigating officer. It may not be - out of place to mention that the samples remained with the police from Friday the 21st December 1990 to Wednesday the 26th December 1990. What is more important is that P.W. 3 Dias himself carried out the raid and the search and is himself the investigating officer. We are riot unmindful of the criticism which Shri Chari has levelled on this aspect of the matter though it is not necessary for us, in this case, to pronounce our opinion on the question as to whether the Investigating Officer should not be the same as the one who carried out the search and raid. Suffice it to, say that the samples remained with the Investigating Officer, Admittedly from Friday the 21st December 1990 till Monday the 24th December 1990. May be, Saturday and Sunday were holidays. On Monday the 24th December 1990, the samples travelled from the A.N.C. to the office of the S.P.C., I.D., at Panaji itself. Tuesday the 25th December 1990 was again X-mas holiday and it was on Wednesday the 26th December 1990 that the samples reached the laboratory and was received by P.W. 1 Calderia. The evidence of P.W. 1 Calderia on the manner of sealing speaks volumes and we are distressed to find that an experienced officer like P.W. 3 Dias should have permitted the sealing of the samples in Such a casual and careless manner. If this is the state of affairs as far as the sealing of the envelope which contained the seized charas, it is difficult to reject the contention of Shri Chari that the identity of the sample searched and the sanctity of the sealing has not been preserved in this case. 22. What disturbs us even more is the fact that Calderia was the first prosecution witness and her evidence was recorded on 24th July 1991. Long before that, her report was available to the Investigating Officer in as much as the analytical report P.W. 1/A is dated 17th January 1991. P.W. 2 Naik was examined on 4th January 1992 i.e. to say Inure than 5 months after the deposition of P.W. 1 Calderia was recorded. P.W. 3 Dias was examined on 2nd April 1992 i.e. to say more than 8 months after the evidence of P.W. 1 Calderia was recorded on 24th July 1991. P.W. 2 Naik was examined on 4th January 1992 i.e. to say Inure than 5 months after the deposition of P.W. 1 Calderia was recorded. P.W. 3 Dias was examined on 2nd April 1992 i.e. to say more than 8 months after the evidence of P.W. 1 Calderia was recorded on 24th July 1991. Despite this, however, there was no attempt even to explain the discrepancy which is a serious matter in a prosecution for the offence punishable under section 20(b) (ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act The learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhobe was at pains to find some explanation and had to trot out we possible situations, one that what was found initially was itself wrapped in two polythene papers as one lot but in the process of sealing and transit got separated into two lots in two separate polythene papers and second that on the recovery of the chillum some charas might have been found in the chillum which constituted the second and the smaller lot of the charas. We are afraid, on the evidence as it stands before us, it is not permissible for us to guess and accept any of these explanations belatedly tendered by the learned Public Prosecutor. We are really surprised at the casual manner in which the seizure and panchanama has been effected. We are more disturbed at the casual manner in which the Investigating Officer has given the evidence when he was alive to the fact that P.W. 1 Caldoria had categorically deposed to the finding of two distinct lots of charas in two separate polythene papers. If this is the position of the evidence on record, we find great substance in the first contention raised by Shri Chari that the prosecution has failed to prove that what was found on the person of the accused on 21st December 1990 was the very substance which was sent for analysis and was analysed by P.W. 1 Calderia on 16th January 1991. A perusal of the evidence of the 3 witnesses, which constitutes the entire evidence in the cases; shows that the integrity of the scaling process is seriously y in doubt in the present case. Sanctity of the sealing process has not been preserved. A perusal of the evidence of the 3 witnesses, which constitutes the entire evidence in the cases; shows that the integrity of the scaling process is seriously y in doubt in the present case. Sanctity of the sealing process has not been preserved. It is difficult for us to record a finding that what was tested in the laboratory on 16th January 1991 by P.W. 1 Calderia was the very substance which was recovered from the accused on Friday the 21st December 1990. If that be the position, we are afraid: the very foundation of the prosecution case must collapse.-Shri Chari is justified in inviting our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kamruddin Jamaluddin Pathan's case (supra). That was a case where out of 31 bottles seized, two bottles were sent for analysis and 29 bottles were kept in a separate envelope. However, when the sample reached the laboratory, what was found was that the envelope contained only one bottle. It is true that the other packet did contain 30 bottles so that the total of 31 bottles could be maintained. In Kamruddin's case, therefore, apparently what was sent for analysis was the sample in two bottles and what was found by the analyst was the sample only in one bottle. Even then, this Court took the view that when persons are charged with serious offences punishable with heavy substantive sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act, it is necessary that the prosecution must adhere to the requirement of law strictly and the least that can be said in the facts of the present case is that the finding of two lots of charas by P.W. 1 Calderia in the fact of the categoric assertion by P.W. 2 Naik and P.W. 3 Dias that only one lot was put in the envelope raises a serious doubt about the prosecution case. The accused would, therefore, in our view be a beast entitled to the benefit of doubt in the present case. 23. In fairness to the learned Sessions Judge we may, however, mention that this point does not seem to have been canvassed before him in the manner in which Shri Chari has canvassed it before us. On the material placed before him, the learned Sessions Judge did come to the conclusion that the rest of the irregularities did not vitiate the trial. On the material placed before him, the learned Sessions Judge did come to the conclusion that the rest of the irregularities did not vitiate the trial. He also referred to the decisions in various cases decided by this Court, including some of those to which one of us - (Dr. Da Silva J.) - is a party. However, we are not expressing any opinion on any of the other contentions raised by Shri Chari and Shri Bhobe. 1t is sufficient for our purpose to disposed of the appeal by accepting the first contention of Shri Chari on the merits of the matter. We, therefore, make it clear that we are expressing no opinion whatsoever on any of the other contentions which are of far reaching implications. 24. In the view that we are taking, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order of conviction liable to set aside. Appeal allowed. 1. A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 196. 2. 1991 Cri. LJ. 826. 3. 1986 Cri. LJ. 1031. 4. 1992(2) Crimes 537. 5. 1992(1) Bombay Cases Reporter 187. 6. 1989 Mah. Law Reporter 534. 7. 1992(2) Bom. C.R. 169. 8. A.I.R. 1962 Bom. 205. 9. 1989(1) Bom. C.R. 38B. 10. 1990(1) Bom. C.R. 433. 11. Crl Misc. App. No. 1340f 1992, decided on 28.8.1992. 12. 1989(2) GOB Law Times 1. 13. 1990 Cri. LJ. 1034. 14. 1991(1) Bom. C.R. 270.