JUDGMENT - V.H. BHAIRAVIA, J.:---This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Session Case No. 486 of 1992 dated 28-6-1993, convicting the appellant under sections 17 and 21 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three years. 2. The prosecution case is that P.S.I. Vigilence Branch, Pune received information on 27-4-1992 at about 6.00 a.m. that one person was to come to Pune on motor-cycle carrying brown sugar. On receiving the said information, it reduced into writing and a raid was arranged. P.S.I. Shinde called panchas and he proceeded on the spot in a jeep alongwith panchas. They waited for the carrier of the brown sugar. At about 7.30 a.m. the appellant-accused was found on the spot and in a search, a bag containing contraband article i.e. brown sugar weighing 475 grams and an amount of Rs. 1,400/- was also found in his pocket. After drawing panchanama, they sealed the Muddemal. A sample was taken and sent to the Chemical Analyser for report. After obtaining report from the Chemical Analyser, the appellant-accused was charge-sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and as the alleged crime was triable by the Sessions Court, the appellant was committed to Sessions Court, Pune for trial. 3. After recording the evidence, the learned Judge held the charge against the appellant-accused to be proved and he came to be punished under sections 17 and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three years by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 4. We heard the learned Counsel Mr. Shirish Gupte for the appellant. It has been submitted that the order of conviction is unsustainable as the prosecution evidence particularly the evidence of punch witness P.W. 1 and the P.S.I. Shinde (P.W. 3) is unreliable. The learned Counsel has submitted that the panch witness is a got up witness and he has not witnessed the raid at all. He has given evidence against the appellant at the instance of P.W. 5, P.S.I. Shinde who is closed friend of P.W. 1. The learned Counsel has submitted that the panch witness is a got up witness and he has not witnessed the raid at all. He has given evidence against the appellant at the instance of P.W. 5, P.S.I. Shinde who is closed friend of P.W. 1. The learned Counsel has pointed out the infirmities in the evidence of P.W. 3 P.S.I. Shinde and sbmitted that it is a bogus and fabricated case has been created against the appellant-accused with a view to take revenge against the appellant because on 26-4-1992 at night, before the alleged raid in question took place, a jeep of police dashed the motor-cycle of the appellant and as the motor-cycle was belonging to the appellants friend, he demanded compensation from the driver of the police jeep and because of that, immediately, P.S.I. Shinde had planned to involve the appellant-accused in such a serious crime which has falsified by the prosecution evidence itself. P.S.I. Shinde (P.W. 3) received a message in the early Morning at about 6 a.m., he reduced into writing in the station diary. In his evidence, he says that he sent two police constables in search of panchas while in his complaint and panchanama, he states that he himself called the panchas. According to panch Vinod Kashinath Sarfare (P.W. 1), police constable had come to B.J. Medical Badminton Hall at 6 a.m. and requested him to act as a panch in the said raid. According to P.W. 3 P.S.I. Shinde, panchas reached there at 6.10 a.m. P.W. 1 says that one constable had come to him while P.W. 3 has stated that two constables sent for calling the panchas. It is a very serious material infirmity in his evidence. One more infirmity is that while reducing message in writing, he did mention that the information was received on phone but he did mention that he received information on phone though the message was reduced into writing, in the station diary. The timing of receiving information, calling the panchas and panchas were easily available on the spot immediately is unbelievable by common sense of any prudent person. Further, the evidence of P.W. 1 Shri Vinod Kashinath Sarfare does not inspire any confidence of the Court as his signature on panchanama (Exhibit-7) at two places do not tally with each other and seems to be fabricated. Further, the evidence of P.W. 1 Shri Vinod Kashinath Sarfare does not inspire any confidence of the Court as his signature on panchanama (Exhibit-7) at two places do not tally with each other and seems to be fabricated. The infirmity in his evidence as regards calling police constable at 6 a.m. and he was easily available on the public road as if he was waiting for the police constable in anticipation. P.W. 3, P.S.I. Shri Shinde does not corroborate his evidence. According to P.S.I. Shinde, it is categorically deposed by him that he himself has called the panchas. 5. The prosecution evidence leads us to believe that this is a false and fabricated case created by P.S.I. Shinde (P.W. 3) with a view to take revenge against the appellant. The defence is that the appellant is a young boy of 21 years. In the morning, he had gone to Jehangir Nursing Home which is just near to Vigilence Branch. While he was going on motor-cycle of his friend to see his ill mother, at that time, a jeep of police was dashed with his motor-cycle and caused some damages to the motor-cycle. As the said motor-cycle belonged to his friend, under fear, he demanded the cost of damages to the motor-cycle from the police and therefore, P.S.I. Shinde haemeraged and made a plan to rob the appellant in such a serious crime. We do find much substance in the defence story and in view of the above observations, this appeal is deserved to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 6. Before we pass the order, it is necessary to observe about the cross-examination of the panchas in such a serious crime. The panch witness (P.W. 1) has obliged the P.S.I. Shinde and given false evidence in support of the Prosecution. P.W. 1 is an engineering who is son of retired D.S.P., P.S.I. Shri Shinde (P.W. 3) has abused his powers and induced such person in creating false case against the innocent young boy which has deprived the life and liberty of the appellant. Therefore, we proposed to issue notice for purjury against P.S.I. Shinde (P.W. 3) and panch Vinod Kashinath Sarfare (P.W. 1). The Registrar is directed to issue notice to these persons and to call the explanation. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. Therefore, we proposed to issue notice for purjury against P.S.I. Shinde (P.W. 3) and panch Vinod Kashinath Sarfare (P.W. 1). The Registrar is directed to issue notice to these persons and to call the explanation. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. The appellant is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. A cash of Rs. 1400/- found in possession of the appellant be returned to him. Appeal allowed. *****