JUDGMENT (ORAL) Batta, J. - PSI Mhamal attached to ANC Panaji decided to go for random checking of drugs at Dando, Anjuna on 16.5.199.6. Two panchas Mukund Salgaonkar and Manohar Naik were called for the said purpose. PSI Mhamal alongwith PI Jadhav, HC Punaji Gawas, PC K.G. Manoj, PC N.K. Salunke and the said two panchas left Panaji alongwith the kit box containing sealing and packing materials, torches, gaslamp, seal of ANC Police Station and weighing scale. They left Panaji at about 5.15 p.m. and reached Anjuna flea market at 5:50 p.m. The vehicle was parked there and thereafter the police party alongwith the panchas proceeded on foot towards the beach. On the way to the beach, they found one foreigner who, on seeing them, increased his speed, on account of which PSI Mhamal suspected that he might be in possession of some drugs. He was accosted and PSI Mhamal told the said foreigner, who is the appellant in this case, that he wanted to search him for narcotic drugs. Thereafter, PSI Mhamal informed him that he had a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that he could also search the members of the raiding party including the panchas. However, both these offers were declined by the appellant. The appellant was having a small cloth bag around his neck and PSI Mhamal told him to give the same. The appellant handed over the said cloth bag to PSI Mhamal, who found two polythene bags in it, one containing some leafy substance suspected to be ganja and the other polythene bag containing charas pieces wrapped in cellophane paper. The said polythene bags alongwith the substance found there were separately weighed. The first polythene packet was found to certain 23 grams of Ganja and the second polythene packet contained 40 grams of charas. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 1501- was also recovered from the said cloth bag. Passport of the appellant was also attached. The said polythene packets were put in separate envelopes and they were sealed in presence of the panchas and the envelopes were signed by the panchas, search officer and the appellant. The panchanama was prepared as well as the seizure report, copies of which were given to the appellant. Passport of the appellant was also attached. The said polythene packets were put in separate envelopes and they were sealed in presence of the panchas and the envelopes were signed by the panchas, search officer and the appellant. The panchanama was prepared as well as the seizure report, copies of which were given to the appellant. The attached contraband was handed over to P1, ANC by letter dated 16.5.1996 and P1 Jadhav forwarded the same to SP, CID where it was received by P. W. 2 Manohar Joshi, Scientific Assistant, on 17.5.1996. Shri Manohar Joshi who has been examined as P. W. 2, kept the said sealed envelopes in the steel cupboard and on 17.5.1996 forwarded the same to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji, where they were received on the same day. Shri Mahesh Kaissare, Junior Scientific Officer (P.W. 1) working in the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration analysed the said samples and found that the sample No. 1 was positive for ganja and sample No.2 was positive for charas. The tests applied are shown in the report as well as in the deposition of the Junior Scientific Officer, Mahesh Kaissare (P.W. 1). There was no challenge to the testimony of PW. 1 and P.W- 2 and they were not at all cross-examined by the defence. 2. The two other witnesses examined by the prosecution are pancha Manohar Naik (P.W. 3) and the Search Officer, PSI Mhamai (P.W. 4). Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length. Relying upon the prosecution evidence, the learned Special Judge, Mapusa, vide judgment dated 24.2.1997 held the appellant guilty for possession of 23.82 grams of ganja under Section 20(b)(i) and 36.6 grams of charas under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the said Act"). The difference in weight as found by the Search Officer at the time of seizure and the weight found by the Junior Scientific Officer (P.W. 1) is on account of the scientific balance used by the Junior Scientific Officer and also because the Search Officer had weighed the substance alongwith the polythene bags and the Junior Scientific Officer had weighed the substance without the said polythene bags The appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years with fine of rupees on lakh, in default to suffer R.I. for two years under Section 20(b)(ii) of the said Act. We was further sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days under Section 20(b)(i) of the said Act. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Lalit Chari, appearing on behalf of the appellant, I has basically placed four contentions before us, namely: (1) that the pancha who was employed in this case did not understand English and in spite of this the defence was not permitted to test the veracity of the pancha witness (P.W. 3) on account of the fact that objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial to the material and relevant question which was put by the defence in order to elicit as to whether the appellant was made aware of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; (2) that there is no satisfactory evidence on record as to whether the accused was told that he would be searched for drugs; (3) that the Search Officer (P.W. 4) has not affixed the specimen seal, which was forwarded to the Junior Scientific Officer for comparison with the seals put on the sealed envelopes, either at the time of search or even later on the same day and in view of the testimony of PSI Mhamal (P.W. 4) that the seal had been returned to PI Jadhav on 16.5.1996 itself, it becomes doubtful that PSI Mhamal was in a position to affix this seal on the said letter (Exh. PW. 1/A) dated 17.5.1996 alongwith which the attached contraband which was sealed with the same seal had been forwarded to the Junior Scientific Officer for analysis. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel, throws considerable doubt regarding the seal used in attachment of contraband and specimen seal on Exh. P.W. l/A; - and (4) that there are material discrepancies between the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3) and Search Officer (P.W. 4), as a result of which reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of either the pancha or the search officer. 4. We shall first deal with the first submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for he appellant. P.W. l/A; - and (4) that there are material discrepancies between the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3) and Search Officer (P.W. 4), as a result of which reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of either the pancha or the search officer. 4. We shall first deal with the first submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for he appellant. In this respect, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Bhame has urged before us hat the evidence on record is that the pancha P.W. 3) in fact knew English, though little, and he had studied in Portuguese language which also enables the pancha to understand English. According to him, though the panch a understood the conversation in English, yet he was not in a position to express himself in English and, in this respect, our attention has been drawn by him to the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3) to the effect that when PSI Mhamal was talking to the accused in English, he (pancha P.W. 3) was understanding what PSI Mhamal was talking with the accused. In respect of the objection raised by the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial regarding the question put by the defence as to whether the pancha could repeat the English words used by PSI Mhamal giving offer of being searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, it was frankly conceded by the Public Prosecutor that P.P. should not have objected to the said question and the Special Judge should not have upheld the said objection. He also pointed out that the pancha (P .W. 3) has stated that he had himself read the panchanama. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, no fault can be found in the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3) and, at any rate, this does not go to the root of the matter. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to go into the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3). He has stated that he knows English, but little and he has studied in Portuguese language. Upto what Standard he had studied in Portuguese language is not on record. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to go into the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3). He has stated that he knows English, but little and he has studied in Portuguese language. Upto what Standard he had studied in Portuguese language is not on record. It appears that since the pancha (P. W 3) has stated that he knows English, though little, a question was put by the defence: "Q. Can you tell what exactly you heard PSI Mhamal say to the accused when he informed the accused of his right to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate?" To this question, the witness stated that the question may be repeated in Konkani and as such the said question was explained to the witness in Konkani. Thereafter, the witness (P.W. 3) replied that he was not able to repeat the exact words used by PSI Mhamal to explain the offer to the accused. The cross-examination was interrupted for want of time and further cross-examination continued on another date On that day, the pancha (P.W. 3) stated that it would be better that questions are asked to him in Konkanithan in English. After stating so, the witness was further cross-examined and he stated that PSI Mhamal was talking with the accused in English. Thereafter he stated that when PSI Mhamal was talking to the accused in English, he was understanding what PSI Mahamal was talking with the accused. It is in this background that the next question was put by the defence to the following effect: "Q. Can you repeat the English words of PSI Mhamal?" Without giving any opportunity to the witness to say anything on this aspect, the learned Public Prosecutor objected to the question. No grounds were given for the said objection. The Special Judge upheld the objection which was not supported by any ground and in the ruling upholding the objection also no reasons were given as to why the said question had been disallowed. The pancha (P.W. 3) had also stated that the accused spoke in English. It is now well settled that Section 50 of the said Act gives a valuable right to the accused to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The pancha (P.W. 3) had also stated that the accused spoke in English. It is now well settled that Section 50 of the said Act gives a valuable right to the accused to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. It is also now well settled that this right is not an empty formality and must in fact be real and the accused must be made aware of the said right. It was in this direction only that the defence wanted to cross-examine the pancha (P.W. 3) who apparently did not have much knowledge of English. In view of the statement of the pancha (P.W. 3), it was necessary that the veracity of this witness was tested by putting the question as to whether the accused was' in fact made aware of the valuable right, but, unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor, without any rhyme or reason or without any justification whatsoever, obstructed and objected to this exercise and it is equally unfortunate that the Special Judge, without even ascertaining as to what were the grounds of objection, had upheld the objection and did not spelt out in his ruling upholding the objection as to why the said objection has been upheld Thus, adequate and proper opportunity was not afforded to the defence in order to ascertain as to whether in fact the said offer was made to the accused even though P. W. 3 pancha had stated that the said offer was made in English and the entire conversation took place in English. P.W. 3 had stated that accused also spoke in English but the defence question to know the same was likewise objected by P.P. and disallowed by Special Judge without reason. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the pancha (P.W. 3) has stated that he has read the panchanama. The pancha even did no} remember whether it was written in the panchanama that the contents of the panchananma were read over .to him and explained to him in Konkani. In fact, if the pancha (P.W. 3) had read the panchanama himself, there was no necessity to explain the panchanama in Konkani as is reflected in the panchanama (Exh. P.W. 3/A). PSI Mhamal (P.W. 4) confirms that panchanama was explained in Konkani to panchas. 6. In fact, if the pancha (P.W. 3) had read the panchanama himself, there was no necessity to explain the panchanama in Konkani as is reflected in the panchanama (Exh. P.W. 3/A). PSI Mhamal (P.W. 4) confirms that panchanama was explained in Konkani to panchas. 6. It is a matter of grave concern that the police officers when they go for random checking for drugs activities at Anjuna which is infested by foreigners, they do not make any sincere efforts to take alongwith them panchas knowing English and everything is left to chance for reasons unexplained. In the light of the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3), we are of the view that the prosecution version that the offer was made to the accused that he had a right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate becomes rather doubtful since the pancha (P. W. 3) is not able to reproduce English conversation which had taken place in between the PSI Mhamal and the accused at the relevant time regarding the said offer. 7. The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that there is no satisfactory evidence on record as to whether the accused was told that he would be searched for the drugs and in this respect reliance has been placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Khandelual v. State1 In this respect, even though PSI Mhamal (P.W. 4) has stated that he had told the accused that he wanted to search him for narcotic drugs, yet the pancha (P.W. 3) does not support the prosecution case even on this aspect. The prosecution case is that on seeing the police party and the panchas the accused had increased his speed, as a result of which P.S.I. Mhamal became suspicious that drugs might be found in his possession. The suspicion was merely on the ground that the accused had increased his speed. Merely because the accused had increased his speed, by itself, may not give rise to suspicion tantamount to bona fide belief. Be that as it may, the pancha (P.W. 3) has stated that PSI Mhamal told the foreigner that he had suspicion that he had something/with him and wanted to check him. He does not say that PSI Mhamal told the accused that he wanted to search him for drugs. Be that as it may, the pancha (P.W. 3) has stated that PSI Mhamal told the foreigner that he had suspicion that he had something/with him and wanted to check him. He does not say that PSI Mhamal told the accused that he wanted to search him for drugs. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Kumar Khandelual v. State (supra) that the person to be searched must be informed that he is intended to be searched for drugs. Thus, even on this aspect also, the prosecution case does not get any support whatsoever from the testimony of pancha (P.W. 3). 8. The next contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that PSI Mhamal (P.W. 4) had categorically averred in his statement in the Court that after the recovery of the contraband, the same was handed over to PI, ANC. PSI Mhamal had also stated that he had handed over the seal used to seal the contraband to PI Jadhav after he had reached the police station by removing the same from the kit box. According to P.W. 4 PSI Mhamal, he had not affixed seal impression of the seal used for sealing the contraband on letter at Exh. P.W. l/A which was forwarded to the Director of Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji for the purpose of comparison with the seals used on the envelopes containing drugs. He also categorically admitted that he did not affix the seal impression on letter (Exh. P.W. 1/A) on the day of the search. This means that the seal on the letter (Exh. P.W. l/A), namely, specimen seal, had not been affixed on the said letter (Exh. P.W. l/A) on 16.5.1996. The said letter is dated 17.5.1996 and is signed by P1 Jadhav. Even though it is stated in Exh. P.W. 4/B that the said letter was being prepared by PSI Mhamal, yet it is clear from the testimony of PSI Mhamal that the seal on the said letter (Exh. P.W. 1/A) was affixed by him. The question is how and from where PSI Mhamal got the said seal for the purpose of affixing the same on letter at Exh. P.W. 4/B that the said letter was being prepared by PSI Mhamal, yet it is clear from the testimony of PSI Mhamal that the seal on the said letter (Exh. P.W. 1/A) was affixed by him. The question is how and from where PSI Mhamal got the said seal for the purpose of affixing the same on letter at Exh. P.W. 1/A. He had already handed over the said seal to P1 Jadhav after he had reached the Police Station on 16.5.1996 and there is no evidence on record that he took back the seal. In other words, the conclusion which will flow will be that either the seal was never handed over to P1 Jadhav as stated by PSI Mhamal or alternatively the seal was freely available to PSI Mhamal, even though it was handed over to PI Jadhav. There is sanctity in sending specimen seal to the Analyst and the specimen seal is separately sent to him so as to ensure that there is no tampering of the sealed envelops. In this case, the prosecution has not been able to give any explanation whatsoever as to how the seal was put by PSI Mhamal on the said letter (Exh. P.W. 1/A). This, as rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the appellant, throws further doubt on the prosecution version. 9. In addition, certain other discrepancies have been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and one of them is that, according to pancha (P.W. 3), PSI Mhamal (P.W. 4) had removed the said cloth bag from the neck of the accused, whereas PSI Mhamal has stated that he had asked the accused to hand over the same and it is the accused who had handed over the same to him. The evidence of P.W. 4 PSI Mhamal excludes the possibility of the said bag being removing from the neck of the accused. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that even though, according to pancha (P.W. 3), the police party was in uniform when they had gone for checking, yet, according' to PSI Mhamal himself, the police party was not in uniform. These are no doubt material contradictions. 10. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that even though, according to pancha (P.W. 3), the police party was in uniform when they had gone for checking, yet, according' to PSI Mhamal himself, the police party was not in uniform. These are no doubt material contradictions. 10. In view of the above, we find it rather difficult to place reliance either on the testimony of pancha (P.W. 3) or the search officer (P.W. 4) in the circumstances of this case and in the light of evidence which is placed on the record. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is bound to succeed and the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the Special Judge, Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No. 27 of 1996, by judgment dated 24.2.1997 is required to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty in case he is not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. 1. 1989(2) Goa LT 1.