JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant was tried by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa for possession of 10 grams of charas on his person and 8.620 Kilograms of charas, as well as 380 L.S.D. square pieces from House No. 1649 in his possession under section 20(b)(ii) and section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution had examined 5 witnesses in support of the charges and vide judgment dated 14-10-97, the appellant was found guilty for possession of 8.620 Kilograms of charas and 380 L.S.D. pieces and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default R. 1. for 2 years on each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone during the investigation and trial was set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. In respect of possession of 10 grams of charas found on his person, he was acquitted. The appellant challenges his conviction in this appeal. 2.The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed by the prosecution witnesses panch P.W. 3, Vijay D'Souza and P.I. Gopal Jadhav P.W. 4 who conducted the raid as well as investigation, is that on 14-10-1995, P.I. Gopal Jadhav, P.W. 4 received specific and reliable information that one Japanese National by name Shingo is residing at Paulo House belonging to one Henry at Deulwada, Anjuna was dealing in narcotic drugs. P.I. Jadhav verified this information and after verification forwarded the same to Dy.S.P. A.N.C. for the purpose of issuing search warrant. Search warrant Exhibit P.W. 3/A was accordingly issued. P.I. Jadhav along with the raiding party and panchas, proceeded to Anjuna. On reaching near Paulo House, the appellant was found standing near the compound gate and P.I. Jadhav informed him that he had information that the accused was dealing in narcotic drugs and he had come to search the house. The accused was informed of his right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the accused could take search of the raiding party. The accused declined the offers made to him. On personal search of the accused, from the left side half pant pocket charas weighing 10 grams was found. The same was put in an envelope, which was packed, sealed and the said envelope was signed by P.I. Jadhav, panchas and the accused. The accused declined the offers made to him. On personal search of the accused, from the left side half pant pocket charas weighing 10 grams was found. The same was put in an envelope, which was packed, sealed and the said envelope was signed by P.I. Jadhav, panchas and the accused. Thereafter, the accused opened the back door lock of the house with the key which he was having in his hand. From inside the house, 8 kilos and 620 grams of charas was found in one haversack bag which was on the table. Two samples of 50 grams each were removed from it. The said samples were packed and sealed and the envelopes were signed by P.I. Jadhav, panchas and the accused. The balance charas was also likewise packed and sealed and signed as aforesaid. In the second zipper compartment of haversack bag, a cash of Rs. 30,000/- was found. It consisted of notes in three bundles and each bundle was of Rs. 10,000/-. The said cash was likewise packed and sealed and the signatures of all the persons as aforesaid were taken. In another compartment of the said haversack bag, one small electronic weighing scale make 'Tanita' was found. The same was likewise packed, sealed and signed as aforesaid. The haversack bag and the cloth bundle in which the charas was found, was also attached. From a table in the main hall, one plastic bag was found in a drawer, in which there was passport of the accused. In this plastic bag, there were small square shape multi-colour papers, which, according to P.I. Jadhav, were L.S.D. stripes. The same were counted and found to be 380 in number and 10 out of that were separated for analysis. The said 10 pieces were separately packed and sealed and also signed by all as aforesaid. The balance 370 stripes were also packed, sealed and signed likewise. The passport was attached. Panchanamas and seizure report were prepared which were signed by the accused and the copies thereof were furnished to him. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The samples were sent for analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The same were analysed by Senior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1 Mr. Varshney. He found that the sample containing 10 grams of substance was charas. He identified that the substances of 50 grams each, as the charas. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The samples were sent for analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The same were analysed by Senior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1 Mr. Varshney. He found that the sample containing 10 grams of substance was charas. He identified that the substances of 50 grams each, as the charas. The L.S.D. stripes gave positive test with presence of L.S.D. He certified that the seals on all four envelopes containing samples were intact and tallied with the specimen seals sent along with the forwarding note. He, however, found only four L.S.D. stripes as against 10 said to have been sent by the police in sealed cover. 3.Learned Senior Advocate Shri Chari made the following submissions : (i) The prosecution had failed to established that the accused was in possession or occupation of the house in question, which was raided and from where the contraband is alleged to have been recovered; (ii) The prosecution evidence that the accused opened the back-door of the house with key cannot be believed and this fact has also not been put to the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.; (iii) Certified copy of the judgment in case of Henry for non-filing of 'C' Form cannot be used against the accused; and (iv) According to the Investigating Officer and the pancha, 10 L.S.D. pieces as sample were forwarded in a sealed cover for analysis, but Senior Scientific Officer, Mr. Varshney P.W. 1 found only 4 L.S.D. stripes in the said envelope. 4.Elaborating his submission, it was urged by him that Henry D'Souza who stated to be the owner of the house in question which was raided by the police, was not examined and in the absence of his examination, a certified copy of the judgment in his case cannot be used against the accused. P.P. Shri Lawande could not convince as to how the certified copy of Henry's case could be used against the accused and, we are of the opinion that the same could not have been used against the accused in the absence of examination of the said Henry. P.P. Shri Lawande could not convince as to how the certified copy of Henry's case could be used against the accused and, we are of the opinion that the same could not have been used against the accused in the absence of examination of the said Henry. 5.On the question of opening of the back door with the key, it has been urged by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that neither these facts are found in the panchanama nor in the complaint; that the key, in question, was never attached by the Investigating Officer and there is discrepancy inter se the testimony of panch P.W. 3 and I.O.P.W. 4 as to whom the said key was handed over. Learned P.P. Shri Lawande stated that there is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in this respect, but the same does not destroy basic fibre of the prosecution story, as there was no challenge whatsoever by the accused regarding his presence at the time of the raid. No doubt true that these are relevant facts and the same should have been figured in the panchanama and the key in question should have been attached by the Investigating Officer, but this omission alone is not sufficient to throw overboard the prosecution case. These facts were also not put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be used against the accused. Learned P.P. Shri Lawande had suggested that the matter may be remanded or this Court may give opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstance which was not put by the trial Court. We are not inclined to adopt this course which is suggested by P.P. Shri Lawande, as we find that on merits of the case even if this evidence is totally excluded, there is no case for interference made out by the accused. Learned Advocate for the appellant had also pointed out that no recovery of the key was shown when the personal search of the accused was taken and 10 grams of charas is alleged to have been recovered from his half pant pocket. In this connection, it may be pointed out that both, panch P.W. 3 as well as P.I. Jadhav have stated in their deposition that the key was in hand of the accused and the same being not a contraband article, was not shown in the panchanama. In this connection, it may be pointed out that both, panch P.W. 3 as well as P.I. Jadhav have stated in their deposition that the key was in hand of the accused and the same being not a contraband article, was not shown in the panchanama. 6.In this connection, learned P.P. Shri Lawande had pointed out that inspite of searching cross-examination of panch P.W. 3, there was no challenge to the presence of the accused near the compound gate of Paulo House, as well as the presence of the accused at the time of raid. Learned P.P. urged before us that the prosecution with the help of panch P.W. 3 and P.I. P.W. 4 has been able to establish the possession of the house in question, by the appellant from where the contraband was recovered and the same is duly corroborated and established by recovery of the passport of the accused, which was found in the drawer of the table in the said house. After scanning through the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, including detailed as well as searching cross-examination of these two witnesses, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused was in exclusive possession of the house in question. During the cross examination of P.W. 3, there was no challenge whatsoever as to the presence of the accused either outside the compound or thereafter at the time of search inside the house, which resulted in recovery of the contraband. The only suggestion given in this respect was that the accused did not assist in entering into the house which was searched. There was no specific challenge during the cross examination that the passport was not recovered from the house in question from where the contraband had been recovered. The only suggestion in this respect was that the passport was not in plastic folder. On the contrary, the panch was questioned as to whether the accused had made any gesture at the time of search and the panch had stated that the accused did not make any gesture at the time of search. Alternative, the submission put forward by learned Counsel Shri Chari that the prosecution had not established the exclusive possession of the house in question of the accused, has no foundation. Alternative, the submission put forward by learned Counsel Shri Chari that the prosecution had not established the exclusive possession of the house in question of the accused, has no foundation. In the cross examination of P.W. 3 though it was suggested that he was not present at the time of the raid and he had signed the panchanama, seizure report, diagram and envelopes at the A.N.C. Police Station, yet it was never suggested to panch P.W. 3 that the accused was not present at the time of the search in the house from where the contrabands were recovered. The theory later developed by the accused that his signatures on the panchanama, seizure report, diagram and the envelopes were taken at the police station, was also never put to the panch P.W. 3. Thus no foundation is found during the cross examination of P.W. 3 to support the submissions on these aspects. The recovery of the passport from the house from where the contrabands were also found proves beyond doubt that the accused was in occupation of the said house. The accused has, in fact, no plausible explanation in respect of the recovery of his passport from the house in question. A faint attempt was made by the accused in his written submissions filed after his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. to suggest that his passport was in the custody of his wife and he did not know how the police got it. In fact, it was suggested to P.W. 4 that the wife of the accused was present at the time and place where the accused was apprehended, which was denied by P.I. Jadhav, who had stated that the wife of the accused was staying separately along with her children and she had come to the A.N.C. Police Station only on the next morning. 7.We have to bear in mind that the raid was conducted by P.I. Jadhav on receipt of specific and reliable information that one Japanese National by name Shingo was residing in the Paulo House belonging to Henry D'Souza at Deulwada, Anjuna and he was dealing in narcotic drugs. 7.We have to bear in mind that the raid was conducted by P.I. Jadhav on receipt of specific and reliable information that one Japanese National by name Shingo was residing in the Paulo House belonging to Henry D'Souza at Deulwada, Anjuna and he was dealing in narcotic drugs. This information was first verified by P.I. Jadhav, after which he forwarded the said information to Dy.S.P. Narcotic under letter Exhibit P.W. 4/C and search warrant was sought vide letter Exhibit P.W. 4/D. The contraband charas recovered from the house is 8 kilos and 620 grams and besides that, a cash of Rs. 30,000/- was also recovered, as well as weighing scale TANITA Japanese make in addition to recovery of L.S.D. stripes and recovery from the person of the accused. Such large recovery of contraband charas and L.S.D. stripes, numbering 380 as well as cash of Rs. 30,000/- totally rules out the possibility of either planting the same or falsely implicating the accused. Examination of Henry D'Souza would have certainly strengthened the prosecution case further, but his non-examination, in the circumstances, does not have any material effect on the prosecution case. Inspite of searching and detailed cross examination of panch, P.W. 3 and P.I. P.W. 4, the basic fibre of the prosecution case could not be destroyed. 8.Learned Senior Counsel had then urged before us that the deposition of Senior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1 Varshney, shows that only 4 L.S.D. stripes were found from the sample Exhibit No. 4; whereas, according to the prosecution case, 10 L.S.D. stripes had been put in the said envelope and relying upon the judgments of this Court in (Kamruddin Jamaluddin Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra)1, (Brown Nicholas William Jonathan, British National v. State of Goa)2, 1993(1) Crimes 508 and (Mr. Milan Sarcanski v. The State)3, 1996(4) Crimes 491, it is urged that a serious doubt is created on the sealing process under the circumstances, which is sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case. In this behalf, learned P.P. Shri Lawande has urged that though there appears to be some lapse on this aspect, yet no case of tampering or manipulation with the sealed sample, has been made out. In this behalf, learned P.P. Shri Lawande has urged that though there appears to be some lapse on this aspect, yet no case of tampering or manipulation with the sealed sample, has been made out. In this connection, he brought to our notice that all the envelopes containing contraband as well as the envelopes containing sample were signed not only by the panchas and the P.I., but also by the accused and, according to Senior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1 Varshney he had found that the seals on all the 4 envelopes were intact and tallied with the specimen seal sent with the forwarding note. Alternatively, it was urged that this discrepancy cannot affect the recovery of 8 kilos and 620 grams of charas which has been duly established by the prosecution. We find that on material particulars the recoveries, in question, have been duly supported by panch P.W. 3 as well as P.I. Jadhav P.W. 4. 9.The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brown Nicholas William Jonathan, British National v. State of Goa, (supra), is that the sanctity of sealing process has to be preserved. In that case before the Division Bench of this Court, Junior Scientific Officer had referred to un-satisfactory sealing of the envelope. In all 6 seals had been put on the sample envelope and the conditions of the seals when the said envelopes reached the Junior Scientific Officer, was:- The seal 'A' was broken and was not intact, seal 'B' was broken, seal 'C' was also broken to a substantial extent, seal 'D' had only an impression of the seal with a very small portion of the seal found and the seals 'E' and 'F' had only impressions of the seal, but there were no seals at all on the two envelopes. It was in this connection that the Division Bench of this Court had pointed out that the police had resorted to the process of sealing as an empty formality in a very casual and careless manner. It was in this connection that the Division Bench of this Court had pointed out that the police had resorted to the process of sealing as an empty formality in a very casual and careless manner. It was pointed out that if there was no such glaring inconsistency in the finding of the two lots of charas inside, by Junior Scientific Officer, as against one polythene packet deposed by P.W. 3 and if the evidence of P.W. 2 (panch) and P.W. 3 (I.O.) therein on one hand were to be consistent with the evidence of Junior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1, shabby and careless manner in sealing could be ignored. It was also noticed therein that the samples remained with the police from 21st December, 1990 to 26th December, 1990. In these circumstances, it was found that the integrity of the sealing process was seriously in doubt and the sanctity of sealing process had not been preserved. In the case under consideration before us, we find that there is no doubt regarding the sanctity of the sealing process. L.S.D. stripes which were taken out for sample, were duly sealed in the envelope, which was not only signed by the panch P.W. 3 and I.O. P.W. 4, but also by the accused. The said sealed envelope was received intact with all seals by Senior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1 Varshney and he had categorically stated that the seals on all the 4 sample envelopes were intact and tallied with the specimen seal sent along with the forwarding note. In these circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the P.P. Shri Lawande that there is no case of tampering with the sealed envelopes which contained L.S.D., but that there is lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in recording that 10 stripes of L.S.D. were put in the sample envelope. The other two cases upon which reliance has been placed by learned Advocate for the appellant are decided on the facts and circumstances of the said cases. The recovery of 380 L.S.D. stripes cannot, thus, be discarded. 10.In the passing, we would like to point out that the prosecution did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the accused on the charges of possession of 10 grams of charas from his person on the ground that the accused was not informed that he was to be searched for drugs. 10.In the passing, we would like to point out that the prosecution did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the accused on the charges of possession of 10 grams of charas from his person on the ground that the accused was not informed that he was to be searched for drugs. In this respect, we find that both, panch P.W. 3 and P.I. P.W. 4, had stated that the accused was informed about the specific and reliable information received by the police that he was dealing in drugs and they had come to search the house and the accused was also informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The panchanama also reveals recording of the said facts, and we, in fact, find substantial compliance inasmuch as the accused had been informed that he was to be searched for drugs. However, since the State did not challenge the said findings, the same cannot be upset. 11.Learned Advocate Shri Chari had also made a grievance that the accused did not know English language and, according to the prosecution case, the conversation between the accused and P.I. Jadhav was in English. As a matter of fact, the accused had signed the search warrant Exhibit P.W. 3-A, search panchanama Exhibit P.W. 3-B seizure report Exhibit P.W. 3-C, sketch of Paulo House Exhibit P.W. 3/D, envelopes containing contraband as well as samples, in English. Even when the 173 documents were furnished to the accused in the Court, the accused had signed in English and the endorsement to that effect is found on the back of the original charge-sheet, which is at page (1) of the lower Court record. No complaint was made by the accused at the time of remand that he did not know English. It was only when the application was made on behalf of the accused on 22-2-1996 that the accused stated that he did not know English. In fact, this application which is at Exhibit 3, at page 423 of the record, shows that the same was also signed by the accused in English. It was for the first time that the accused signed in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. in Japanese. In fact, this application which is at Exhibit 3, at page 423 of the record, shows that the same was also signed by the accused in English. It was for the first time that the accused signed in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. in Japanese. In case the accused did not understand English language, he could have refused to sign the documents and the envelopes and could have refused to accept the documents. The theory put forward by the accused that his signatures were obtained on the documents as well as on the envelopes in the police station has no foundation whatsoever in the cross examination of panch P.W. 3. The panch had categorically stated in his deposition that the accused spoke in English at the time of search, though he could not state whether the accused was speaking English fluently. He also stated that the accused did not make any gesture at the time of the search. P.I. Jadhav P.W. 4 has also confirmed that the conversation was in English. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept this contention made on behalf of the accused. 12.Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no case for interference in the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. *****