JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant was tried for possession of 22 dots of L.S.D., 60 L.S.D. strips, 120 grams of charas, 20 Ecstacy tablets and 3 grams of Ecstacy powder which is punishable under sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The prosecution had examined four witnesses in support of the charge. The accused/appellant had examined himself in his defence. After hearing the accused/appellant and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge, Mapusa, found the accused guilty for the said offences. 2. The accused/appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rupees one lakh, in default rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 20(b)(ii) of the said Act. Similar sentence and fine and sentence in default was imposed under section 22 of the said Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period during which the appellant was in custody in connection with this case was ordered to be set off under section 428 Cr. P.C. The accused/appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 23rd February, 1996 P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji received information that one Bengali, thin built, with curly hair and black complexion residing in House No. 1722(N) at Soranto, Anjuna was dealing with narcotic drugs. P.S.I. Raut Dessai P.W. 4 went to Anjuna to verify the information and after confirming the same, came back to A.N.C. Police Station, Panaji at about 6 p.m. This information was reduced into writing and a copy of this information with covering letter was sent to Dy.S.P., Shukla of ANC Police Station requesting him to accompany for the raid or to issue search warrant. Dy.S.P. Shukla issued search warrant bearing No. 1/96 dated 23-2-96 authorising P.S.I. Raut Dessai to conduct the search. The search warrant is on record as Exh. P.W. 3/A). After obtaining search warrant P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) along with P.I. Jadhav, PSI Nutan Pangam, ASI K.G. Dessai, Head Constable Punaji Gauns, police constable Vithal Gaonkar and constable Salunke along with the panchas left for Anjuna. Kit box containing necessary material required for the search as well as seal of the ANC Police Station was carried. P.W. 3/A). After obtaining search warrant P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) along with P.I. Jadhav, PSI Nutan Pangam, ASI K.G. Dessai, Head Constable Punaji Gauns, police constable Vithal Gaonkar and constable Salunke along with the panchas left for Anjuna. Kit box containing necessary material required for the search as well as seal of the ANC Police Station was carried. The raiding party reached Anjuna at about 7.25 p.m. The door of the house was partly open and on knocking the same, the accused/appellant came out in the veranda. On questioning he gave his name as Bhabani Basu. P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) informed him that he had come to search him and the house for drugs. The accused/appellant was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and that he also had right to search the raiding party including the Panchas. Both these offers were declined by him. Thereupon P.S.I. Raut Dessai had shown him the search warrant. The personal search of the accused/appellant was conducted. He had a wrist pouch on his left hand which had one zipper compartment. On opening the same one autopress polythene packet containing some substance in the form of dots was found. The said dots were in between two transparent polythene papers in rows. These dots were suspected to be L.S.D. dots which were found to be 22 in number. The same were put back in the autopress polythene packet which in turn was put in an envelope which was packed and sealed with ANC seal. The said envelope was signed by PSI Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) and both the panchas but the accused/appellant refused to sign the same. On further search of the same wrist pouch one more autopress polythene packet containing multicoloured papers was found. In this autopress polythene packet individual pieces in the form of strips were found which were suspected to be L.S.D. pieces. They were 60 in number. They were put back in the autopress polythene packet which in turn was put in an envelope which was packed and sealed with ANC seal. This envelope was signed by PSI Raut Dessai and the panchas but the accused refused to sign the same. They were 60 in number. They were put back in the autopress polythene packet which in turn was put in an envelope which was packed and sealed with ANC seal. This envelope was signed by PSI Raut Dessai and the panchas but the accused refused to sign the same. The wrist pouch was put separately into an envelope which was packed and sealed and signed by PSI Raut Dessai and panchas but the accused refused to sign the same. The personal search of the accused was conducted in the veranda near the front door in which there was no light, but light was coming from the inner room. 4. P.S.I. Raut Dessai then showed him the search warrant and the accused was asked to sign the same which he refused. P.S.I. Raut Dessai signed the warrant on its back as well as the panchas. The raiding party then entered into the first room, but nothing was found. Likewise, nothing was found in the toilet and the kitchen. In the southern side room of the house which was sitting room there were mattresses, clothes and blankets. In one brown colour sleeveless woollen jacket having two pockets in front and mark 'Om' printed on it, in the front right pocket one autopress polythene packet containing black substances in cylindrical shapes were found. The said cylindrical pieces were individually wrapped in cellophane papers and the same were suspected to be charas. The weight of the substance was taken along with their wrappers as well as the autopress polythene packet and the weight was found to be 120 grams. The same were put in an envelope which were packed and sealed with ANC seal. The envelope was signed by PSI Raut Dessai and panchas, but the accused refused to sign the same. On further search of the same room, one purple colour waist pouch of rexene having mark 'Feamat' was found which had three zipper compartments. The same were put in an envelope which were packed and sealed with ANC seal. The envelope was signed by PSI Raut Dessai and panchas, but the accused refused to sign the same. On further search of the same room, one purple colour waist pouch of rexene having mark 'Feamat' was found which had three zipper compartments. In the first zipper compartment one autopress polythene packet containing some tablets which were pink and white in colour were found and the same were suspected to be ecstacy tablets, 14 tablets were white in colour and 6 tablets in pink colour and the same were put back in the polythene packet which in turn was put in an envelope and was packed and sealed with the seal of A.N.C. The same was signed by the panchas and P.S.I. Raut Dessai but the accused refused to sign the same. In the same compartment of the first zipper one more polythene autopress packet containing creamish powder was found which was suspected to be ecstacy powder. Its weight was taken along with the polythene packet which was found to be 3 grams. The same along with its polythene packet was put in an envelope which was in turn put in an envelope and the envelope was packed and sealed and it was signed by P.S.I. Raut Dessai and panchas, but the accused refused to sign the same. In the second zipper compartment of the waist pouch passport of the accused, cash amount of Rs. 10,000/-, 720 U.S. dollars, 90 pounds and 80 German Marks were found. The same were put in the second zipper compartment. Nothing was found in the third zipper compartment of the waist pouch. The waist pouch along with the items found in the second zipper compartment was put in an envelope which was packed and sealed with ANC seal. The same was signed by P.S.I. Raut Dessai and the panchas but the accused refused to sign the same. The panchanama (Exh. P.W. 3/B) was prepared and copy of the same was offered to the accused, but he refused to accept the same and he also refused to sign the panchanama in token of having received the copy and accordingly, the seizure report (Exh. P.W. 3/C) was also prepared. The accused refused to receive the copy and consequently refused to sign. P.W. 3/B) was prepared and copy of the same was offered to the accused, but he refused to accept the same and he also refused to sign the panchanama in token of having received the copy and accordingly, the seizure report (Exh. P.W. 3/C) was also prepared. The accused refused to receive the copy and consequently refused to sign. The search of the raiding party was once again offered at the end of conclusion of the raid, but the accused refused to take the search. 5. After conclusion of the raid PSI Raut Dessai came to the police station along with the accused and complaint (Exh. P.W. 4/A) was filed. Information under section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act was sent to the higher authorities and the said information is Exh. P.W. 4/C). All the sealed envelopes containing the attached property were handed over to the Police Inspector, ANC, Panaji vide letter (Exh. P.W. 4/D) on 23-2-96 itself with a request to forward the same for analysis to the Laboratory. During the course of trial the envelopes containing the drugs and the balance quantity of drugs returned after analysis were identified by PSI Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) and pancha Gautam Karekar (P.W. 3). 6. The sealed envelopes along with the letter addressed to the Chemical Analyser, CFSL, Hyderabad were sent by P.I., A.N.C. to Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Crime Branch, Panaji for onward transmission on 24-2-96 under letter (Exh. P.W. 2/A). The same were received by the Scientific Assistant, Manohar Joshi (P.W. 2) in the Crime Branch, C.I.D., Panaji on 24-2-96 itself who acknowledged the receipt of the same on the letter (Exh. P.W. 2/A) itself. P.W. 2 Manohar Joshi kept the sealed envelopes in his steel cupboard. The said sealed envelopes along with the letter addressed to CFSL and forwarding Note containing specimen seal were sent through Police Constables Oscar D'Souza and K.G. Naik on 9-3-96. According to P.W. 2 the samples which were required to be sent to CFSL, Hyderabad used to be sent through special vehicle after every four weeks after sufficient number of samples had accumulated. This time along with the sealed samples of this case, samples in 40 other cases were also sent to Hyderabad. 7. The sealed samples were received on 11-3-96 in the Office of CFSL, Hyderabad and the same were marked to the Senior Scientific Officer (P.W. 1) K.M. Varshney. This time along with the sealed samples of this case, samples in 40 other cases were also sent to Hyderabad. 7. The sealed samples were received on 11-3-96 in the Office of CFSL, Hyderabad and the same were marked to the Senior Scientific Officer (P.W. 1) K.M. Varshney. He confirms receipt of the same along with the forwarding letter, forwarding note containing specimen seal and found that the seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seal. He opened the sealed envelopes, and took weight of the contraband and carried out analysis. He found that the contraband contained in the envelopes Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 which were marked during the course of trial as MOs. 4/A and 4/B gave positive test for presence of L.S.D. The contraband contained in envelope Sr. No. 3 (which was marked as MO. 4/C during the trial) gave positive test for the presence of charas. It was also found by him that the white tablets in envelope No. 4 (which was marked in the course of trial as MO. 4/D) gave positive test for the presence of codeine and the pink colour tablets were tested for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances but none could be detected in these pink tablets. Lastly, he found that contraband in envelope 5 (which was marked as MO. 4/E during the course of trial) gave positive test for the presence of codeine. 8. The case of the accused in the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was total denial. The accused filed written statement as well during the course of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he alleged that he had been falsely implicated. His case is that when he was on his way to Rose Garden Restaurant near Anjuna Post Office for dinner, he found a crowd beating two foreign tourists. One of them Carlos Stephano, French National was known to him and he inquired with the said persons in the crowd as to what the matter was. The said persons from the crowd told him that they were policemen and checking passport, visa and drugs. Thereupon the accused told them to take the foreigners to the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, upon which he was also beaten. His electronic video camera, walkman and Indian currency amounting to about Rs. 70,000/- was taken away. The said persons from the crowd told him that they were policemen and checking passport, visa and drugs. Thereupon the accused told them to take the foreigners to the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, upon which he was also beaten. His electronic video camera, walkman and Indian currency amounting to about Rs. 70,000/- was taken away. The accused explained his presence in Goa stating that he could not get ticket from Bombay to go to Cairo and as such he came to Goa till he could get the ticket. The accused claims that he was mercilessly beaten in the police station and was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and he was produced only on 1-3-96. During this period third degree methods were adopted by the Police. On 27-2-96 his friend Ms. Leila Price who was sharing his room, came to the Police Station after reading news item of the arrest of the accused and handed over the passport to A.N.C. Police Station. According to the accused he had given the passport to her to get confirmation of the ticket. 9. In his examination in defence under section 315 Cr.P.C. the accused admitted that a little after his arrest some articles were attached by the Police and according to him the items in envelope (MO. 4/A-1 and MO. 4/B-1) were similar to what were attached from him of which the shape was the same. He also admitted that brownish substance in envelope MO. 4/C-1 was similar to the one which was attached from him from the room of two persons who were residing at Anjuna and the said dark brown substance was modelling clay. Substance in envelope MO. 4/A-1 and MO. 4/B-1 was stated by him to be colours for making black and white photographs into colour photographs. Likewise he admitted that the contents in envelopes MO. 4/D-1 and MO. 4/E-1 were attached from the room at Anjuna at the time of his arrest, and the said substance were analgesic tablets with brand name Saljon. The powder form substance which was found was of the same tablets. In cross-examination he admitted that the substance found in envelope MO. 4/C-1 was recovered from the sitting room of the house but he could not say anything to the suggestion that it was recovered from the woollen jacket. To a question that substance in envelopes MO. 4/D-1 and MO. In cross-examination he admitted that the substance found in envelope MO. 4/C-1 was recovered from the sitting room of the house but he could not say anything to the suggestion that it was recovered from the woollen jacket. To a question that substance in envelopes MO. 4/D-1 and MO. 4/E1 were found in his waist pouch, the accused stated that he did not think so and added that he did not remember exactly. To a question put to him that the substance from the envelopes MO. 4/A1 and MO. 4/B1 was found in his wrist pouch, the accused answered that he did not remember. 10. The accused was not represented by any lawyer in this appeal and he stated that he would argue the matter himself. He was specifically told that he could be provided with a Counsel under the Legal Aid Scheme to argue the appeal on his behalf, but the accused insisted that he would argue the matter himself and did not want the assistance of any Advocate. 11. The accused made number of submissions before us and we shall deal with the same one by one. 12. The first submission made by him is the charge is defective since it does not mention the weight of L.S.D. dots, strips and ecstacy tablets and the weight of charas which was found by P.W. 1 is less than the one shown in the charge. Copy of the report (Exh. P.W. 1/B) of P.W. 1 had been furnished to the accused wherein the exact weight of the substance was recorded and in view of the same we do not find any merit in this contention of the accused. Besides that we find that no prejudice has been caused to the accused in respect of the non-mentioning of the weight of some of the contraband items in the charge. The accused was fully aware of the charges against him and P.W. 1 was cross-examined at length on his report. 13. The next submission made by the accused is that the mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Act have not been complied with. The accused was fully aware of the charges against him and P.W. 1 was cross-examined at length on his report. 13. The next submission made by the accused is that the mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Act have not been complied with. In this connection, it was submitted by him that pancha (P.W. 3) has stated that the accused was told he could be provided with a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for taking his search which cannot be equated to the information that the accused had a right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. It was further pointed out that the accused had refused to sign any envelopes or documents prepared by the Police at the time of the raid which would go to show that the accused did not co-operate with the police and taking the same into consideration, it cannot be accepted that the accused had declined search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Accordingly, it was argued by him that in the absence of anything in writing from the accused that he was informed of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and that he had waived the same, the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3) or P.S.I. P.W. 4 who conducted the raid should not be accepted. A similar argument was considered in Criminal Appeal No. 5/97 (Mr. Ilan Pierre Yan Wijnalda v. State)1, by the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Batta, J.) was a party. After considering the judgments of the Apex Court in (State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh and others)2, 1996(1) S.C.C. 288 and (State of Punjab v. Labh Singh)3, 1996 Cri.L.J., 3996 it was pointed out therein as under :- "From the aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court, we are unable to read that the Apex Court has laid down that the search officer should take in writing from the accused that he has been informed of his right of search to be made before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and that the accused has waived his right. If such a course is adopted, obviously it may not be open to the accused to take the plea of non compliance of section 50, but the absence of such writing from the accused by no stretch of imagination can be said to be violative of section 50 if the prosecution is able to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the accused was informed of his right that if he so desired search could be made either before a Magistrate or before a Gazetted Officer." 14. The evidence on record shows that the accused was first informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as well as of his right to search the raiding party including the panchas, but he declined both the offers. Immediately thereafter search warrant was shown to the accused and it is only at this stage that the accused had refused to sign the search warrant and thereafter did not sign any document prepared by the Police. P.S.I. P.W. 4 had categorically asserted that he had informed the accused about the information which he had received and that he had come to search him and the house for drugs. He also informed the accused of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as well as his right to search the raiding party including the panchas, but the accused had declined both the offers. Pancha (P.W. 3) corroborates the version of P.W. 4 when he states that the accused was told that there was information that the accused was dealing in drugs and that the Police had come to search him for drugs and also search the house. According to P.W. 3 P.S.I Raut Dessai gave two offers to the accused, namely, that the accused could search the raiding party and the panchas and the accused could be provided with a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for taking his search, but the accused refused both the offers. Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that when a Police officer duly authorised is about to search, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer or a nearest Magistrate. Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides that when a Police officer duly authorised is about to search, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer or a nearest Magistrate. Therefore, in accordance with section 50 of the Act the accused has to be informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and if such person so requires, he can be taken for search before the said officers. Though, in the statement of the pancha (P.W. 3) he has stated that the accused was told that he could be provided with a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for taking search, the same substantially conveys the fact that the accused could be taken for search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The question of taking the accused for search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate would not arise unless such right exists in favour of the accused. There is also contemporary record in the nature of panchanama prepared by the Police at the spot of search and seizure which clearly reflects that the accused was informed about his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted officer. We find that the prosecution with cogent and trustworthy evidence on record has been able to establish that the accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate which was declined by the accused. The accused had further submitted that the Special Judge had disallowed a very relevant question put to the pancha (P.W. 3) as to whether he could repeat the exact words used by P.S.I. Raut Dessai while giving the offer to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and the exact words used by the accused in declining the offer. This witness had already stated as to what was the offer made by P.S.I. Raut Dessai to the accused on the question of search before Gazetted officer or Magistrate and, as such, the question had to be disallowed though objection taken was not correctly framed. We, therefore, do not find any violation of the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The contention of the accused is, therefore, rejected. 15. We, therefore, do not find any violation of the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The contention of the accused is, therefore, rejected. 15. The next contention advanced by the accused is that the provisions of section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with since the receipt of the said information by the superior officer has not been produced nor any superior officer has been examined to prove the receipt of the said information. The information which was sent under section 57 of the Act has been exhibited as Exh. P.W. 3/E. Section 57 provides that whenever any person makes an arrest or seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate office superior. The immediate superior officer of P.S.I. Raut Dessai P.W. 4 is in fact P.I., A.N.C. Police Station. Report (Exh. P.W. 4/E) itself, shows that the said report was forwarded by P.S.I. Raut Dessai P.W. 4 to S.P., A.N.C. and Dy.S.P., A.N.C. through Police Inspector, A.N.C., Panaji and this information does bear signature of P.I., A.N.C., Panaji through whom it was submitted. Therefore, the very report (Exh. P.W. 4/E) itself proves that P.S.I. Raut Dessai had complied with the provisions of section 57 of the Act on 24-2-96 when he forwarded the said information through P.I., A.N.C., Panaji. Therefore, there is no merit whatsoever in this submission of the accused. 16. The accused then contended that the search warrant has been manipulated and in this connection, our attention has been drawn to the fact that information (Exh. P.W. 4/B) received under section 42(1) of the Act was placed before S.D.P.O., A.N.C. at 6.00 p.m. and simultaneously application for request for search warrant (Exh. P.W. 4/C) was also made which request was also received by Dy. S.P., A.N.C. at 6.00 p.m. These facts, according to the accused, falsify the case put forward by the P.S.I. Raut Dessai that after the receipt of the information he had gone to Anjuna to verify the information. If the information itself was received at 6.00 p.m. as can be seen from Exh. S.P., A.N.C. at 6.00 p.m. These facts, according to the accused, falsify the case put forward by the P.S.I. Raut Dessai that after the receipt of the information he had gone to Anjuna to verify the information. If the information itself was received at 6.00 p.m. as can be seen from Exh. P.W. 4/B, then the question of verification of the said information before obtaining the search warrant would not arise since the search warrant was also asked for at the same time at 6.00 p.m. The position in this respect has been clarified by P.W. 4 when he has stated that the information received by him was first confirmed by him by going to Anjuna and only after confirmation of the said information, after returning to A.N.C. Police Station he had reduced the said information into writing at 6.00 p.m. and forwarded the said information along with request for warrant to Dy. S.P., A.N.C. The accused had cross-examined P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) with reference to the case diary. Entry No. 13 in the case diary reads "received a specific and reliable information that one Bengali man with curly hair, thin built and black complexion, residing at Soronta, Anjuna is dealing with narcotic drugs. Hence I along with HC 1645 left to Anjuna with Y/C No. 361 to confirm the same." Thereafter, on return from Anjuna, station diary Entry No. 16 was made at 6.00 p.m. in relation to station diary Entry No. 13 that the information had been confirmed. Station diary Entry No. 17 shows that the said information was reduced to writing and the copy of the same was sent to Dy. S.P., A.N.C. and station diary Entry No. 18 shows that request for search warrant was made to Dy.S.P., A.N.C. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of the accused that the search warrant has been manipulated. It was also pointed out by him that the search warrant does not mention the name of the owner. However, we find that the search warrant mentions House No. 1722(N) occupied by one Bengali person at Soronta, Anjuna. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the search warrant and the contention of the accused has no merit. 17. It was also pointed out by him that the search warrant does not mention the name of the owner. However, we find that the search warrant mentions House No. 1722(N) occupied by one Bengali person at Soronta, Anjuna. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the search warrant and the contention of the accused has no merit. 17. The next submission of the accused is that the pancha (P.W. 3) who has been used in this case is not from the locality and no efforts were made to take any pancha from the locality, but P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) took the said pancha from Panaji who is a pliable witness being the son of another police officer who was at one time working as his superior. It is also his contention that pancha (P.W. 3) was not at all present at the time of the raid and in view of the statement of the pancha that he had signed the panchanama only on one place and the discrepancies in his deposition relating to timing, denomination of currency notes and the discrepancy in the location of the house in question, no credence can be given to the evidence of the pancha. The raid in this case was carried out on the basis of reliable information and the said house in which the accused was residing is at Anjuna which falls in the drug infested belt of Goa. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that people living in this area are not willing to come forward to act as panchas in relation to the drug activity. Accordingly, the fact that the panchas were taken from Panaji for the purpose of raid, by itself, would not affect the search and the recoveries made thereunder. Admittedly, pancha (P.W. 3) is the son of another police officer working in the Police Department in Goa and the pancha (P.W. 3) has acted as panch in two previous drug cases in which raid was conducted by P.S.I. Raut Dessai. Pancha (P.W. 3) is presently doing independent business and he has passed First Year Arts. A perusal of the deposition of pancha (P.W. 3) would go to show that he has given vivid and detailed description of the entire raid and recoveries effected thereunder. Pancha (P.W. 3) is presently doing independent business and he has passed First Year Arts. A perusal of the deposition of pancha (P.W. 3) would go to show that he has given vivid and detailed description of the entire raid and recoveries effected thereunder. Some discrepancies here and there are bound to be there in all truthful cases and in fact such minor discrepancies are considered as hallmark of truth of the version of the prosecution. If the discrepancies are of minor nature which do not shake the prosecution case, undue importance cannot be given to such discrepancies until and unless the discrepancies go to the root and shake the very fabric and version of the prosecution case. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that pancha (P.W. 3) cannot be said to be a pliable witness as contended by the accused who would go to implicate the accused at the behest of P.S.I. Raut Dessai. The case of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in this case by P.S.I. Raut Dessai on account of his intervention in the matter of foreigners and he was mercilessly beaten. His contention further is that he was never produced before the Magistrate/Special Judge within 24 hours of his arrest on 23-2-96 and he was for the first time produced before the Magistrate only on 1-3-96. The remand application on record which is at page 623 of the original record in Special Criminal Case No. 15/96 shows that the accused was produced before C.J.M. Panaji on 24-2-96. The order on the said remand application shows that the accused had no complaint. The remand order dated 1-3-96 which is at page 625 of the original record also shows that the accused had no grievance. In case the accused was falsely implicated and the contraband goods were planted on him and he was mercilessly beaten, it is but obvious that the accused would report the matter to the Magistrate when produced on the said occasions. The explanation of the accused that he was threatened by the police not to complain has no basis. In case the accused was mercilessly beaten, it would obviously leave injuries on his person and he could very well show the injuries to the Magistrate who could take appropriate measures and take action in the matter. The explanation of the accused that he was threatened by the police not to complain has no basis. In case the accused was mercilessly beaten, it would obviously leave injuries on his person and he could very well show the injuries to the Magistrate who could take appropriate measures and take action in the matter. The accused also pointed out that the owner of the house and the care-taker were not examined. The non-examination of the said persons could not affect the prosecution case in the event the prosecution is able to establish that the house in question which was searched was in occupation of the accused. The record does not show nor there is evidence on record to establish that the house in question was occupied by any other person other than the accused. The informant had pointed out the house which was subsequently raided as the one which was occupied by the accused and when the police party went there it was only the accused who was found occupying the said house. There is no evidence on record that besides the accused the said house was occupied by anyone else. The house number was recorded in the search warrant wherein it was stated that the said house was occupied by one Bengali. During the course of house search the police had recovered the passport of the accused from the zipper compartment of the waist pouch found in one of the rooms of the house occupied by the accused. The case of the accused is that the passport was not seized from the house but it was subsequently handed over by his foreigner friend to the Police. P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) and pancha have categorically stated that passport, cash amount of Rs. 10,000/-, 720 dollars and 90 pounds and 80 German Marks were found from the waist pouch in the said house. The panchanama and seizure report shows that the passport bearing No. P-0077077 of the accused which was issued at Calcutta was seized from the house search. P.S.I. Raut Dessai had handed over the contraband and other articles including passport in sealed covers to Police Inspector, A.N.C. vide letter (Exh. P.W. 4/D) on 23-2-96 itself. The seizure of the passport was also mentioned in Exh. P.W. 4/E which is information sent to the superior officer under section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. P.S.I. Raut Dessai had handed over the contraband and other articles including passport in sealed covers to Police Inspector, A.N.C. vide letter (Exh. P.W. 4/D) on 23-2-96 itself. The seizure of the passport was also mentioned in Exh. P.W. 4/E which is information sent to the superior officer under section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The sub mission made by the accused that the entries leading to recovery of passport were subsequently inserted in the records has no basis whatsoever. The recovery of the passport from the said house in which the accused was residing strenghtens the prosecution case further in order to establish that the said house in question which was searched and from where contraband was recovered was in possession and occupation of the accused. 18. The next contention of the accused is that the seal used for sealing the envelopes is general seal of the police station and not of the officer in-charge and it was freely available to anyone. It was further pointed out by him that there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 as to whether the seal was in the kit box or not. The seal used in this case is of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa. P.W. 4 Raut Dessai has stated that he carried the kit box containing weighing, packing and sealing material and he also took the seal of A.N.C. Police Station. He has further deposed that when they left the Police Station the seal was with P.I. Jadav and it was handed over to him at the place of search. The sealing was done by H.C. Punaji Gauns to whom the seal was handed over by P.S.I. Raut Dessai. It is further in his evidence that the seal of A.N.C. Police Station was in his custody after sealing the envelopes and he handed over the seal to P.I. Jadav after returning from the raid and after fixing the specimen seal on the forwarding note in A.N.C. Police Station. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 4 it is established that the seal was taken by Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) from P.I. Jadav at the time of search and after completing the search formalities and on reaching the Police Station after affixing the specimen seal on the forwarding note the seal was handed over back to P.I. Jadav. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 4 it is established that the seal was taken by Raut Dessai (P.W. 4) from P.I. Jadav at the time of search and after completing the search formalities and on reaching the Police Station after affixing the specimen seal on the forwarding note the seal was handed over back to P.I. Jadav. Thus, it cannot be accepted, as contended by the accused, that the seal was freely available and anyone could lay his hands on the seals. The movement of the seal has been duly explained by P.S.I. Raut Dessai, and the submission of the accused are devoid of any merit. 19. The next contention of the accused is that the specimen seal was not affixed on the spot on the forwarding note which was sent along with the sealed envelopes to CFSL, Hyderabad for analysis and the prosecution has failed to prove that the contraband which was recovered is the same which was sent for analysis to CFSL, Hyderabad. In this respect it was pointed out that the chain in the link has not been completed and the persons who carried the samples have not been examined. It was also pointed out that P.W. 2 to whom the sealed contraband was sent does not say that he had received the forwarding note containing specimen seal. It was also pointed out that even though the sealed envelopes are said to have been received by P.W. 2 on 24-2-96, yet the inward entry in respect of the receipt of the same was made only on 26-2-96. The evidence on record shows that after P.S.I. Raut Dessai returned from the raid to A.N.C. Police Station, he handed over the sealed envelopes to P.I., A.N.C. on 23-2-96 itself at night and the said sealed envelopes were forwarded by him vide letter (Exh. P.W. 2/A) to Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Crime Branch on 24-2-96 whereunder the same were received by P.W. 2 on 24-2-96 itself as can be seen from the endorsement below the said letter (Exh. P.W. 2/A). On receipt of the said envelope P.W. 2 kept them in a steel cupboard. The receipt on Exh. P.W. 2/A is authentic record of the receipt of the sealed envelopes on 24-2-96 by P.W. 2 as well as forwarding note to CFSL, Hyderabad containing the specimen seal. P.W. 2/A). On receipt of the said envelope P.W. 2 kept them in a steel cupboard. The receipt on Exh. P.W. 2/A is authentic record of the receipt of the sealed envelopes on 24-2-96 by P.W. 2 as well as forwarding note to CFSL, Hyderabad containing the specimen seal. In his deposition also P.W. 2 has confirmed that he had received the said letter (Exh. P.W. 2/A) on 24-2-96 along with the prescribed form bearing No. 334 dated 24-2-96 (Exh. P.W. 1/A colly.) with specimen seal of A.N.C. and five sealed covers. The Office of A.N.C. and C.I.D. Crime Branch, Panaji is in the same building. In can be seen that 24-2-96 was fourth Saturday when the office establishment is closed which explains that even though the sealed envelopes and the forwarding note were received on 24-2-96, the same were inwarded only on 26th February, 1996 which was the next working day for the office establishment. The five sealed covers containing contraband were handed over by P.W. 2 Manohar Joshi to Police Constables Oscar D'Souza and K.G. Naik on 9-3-96 with forwarding letter (Exh. P.W. 1/A) colly.) and the receipt of the said sealed envelopes and specimen seal on 11-3-96 at the CFSL, Hyderabad is proved through the evidence of Senior Scientific Officer K.M. Varshney (P.W. 1). P.W. 2 has explained that special vehicle is sent to C.F.S.L., Hyderabad when sufficient number of samples accumulate at interval of four weeks. Along with the sealed samples in this case, contraband in other cases were also forwarded. The seals on the said envelopes were found to be intact by K.M. Varshney (P.W. 1) and the said seals tallied with the specimen seal separately sent. Thus the chain is complete and prosecution through the evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 has been able to establish that the contraband attached was sent for analysis which was analysed by K.M. Varshney (P.W. 1). The contraband samples were found sealed by K.M. Varshney and the seals tallied with the specimen seals and there is no case of tampering with the seals. Under these circumstances, the submission of the accused on this count cannot be accepted. The contraband samples were found sealed by K.M. Varshney and the seals tallied with the specimen seals and there is no case of tampering with the seals. Under these circumstances, the submission of the accused on this count cannot be accepted. The accused had also pointed out that the visual description of the samples does not tally but we do not find any merit in this submission as well and no such conclusion can be drawn from the evidence on record. 20. The next submission put up by the accused is that the report of the Chemical Analyser K.M. Varshney (P.W. 1) is not reliable as it does not disclose either reasons or the exact data in support of the reasons. In this connection reliance was placed on a number of judgments of this Court namely (Nicklaus Peter Heel v. State of Goa)4, Criminal Appeal No. 19/96, (Dror Taskent and Eran Bar v. State of Goa)5, Criminal Appeals No. 10 and 11/97 and Criminal Appeals No. 25/97, 26/97, 27/97 and 28/97 (Deen Khan Mohamad and others v. State of Goa)6. Relying upon the said judgments it is averred by the accused that the report of the chemical Analyser cannot be accepted. In all the criminal cases upon which reliance has been placed by the accused neither in the report of the Chemical Analyser nor in his deposition the details of test applied or data had been furnished. In all these cases the report of the Chemical Analyser had merely stated that the exhibits were analysed by suitable chemical methods and the result of the analysis was reflected in the report. Even when he was examined in the Court he had neither given details of the test applied nor data on the basis of which the opinion was formed that the exhibits analysed were contraband. In these circumstances, it was held in the said judgments that the mere conclusion of opinion bereft of grounds on which such opinion is based is of no help or value. The position is however different in the appeal under consideration. In this case the Chemical Analyse (P.W. 1) had been recalled for further examination and in the course of his further examination he had given the details of the test carried out by him on the contraband contained in the sealed envelopes on the basis of which he had given his report (Exh. P.W. 1/B). In this case the Chemical Analyse (P.W. 1) had been recalled for further examination and in the course of his further examination he had given the details of the test carried out by him on the contraband contained in the sealed envelopes on the basis of which he had given his report (Exh. P.W. 1/B). He has confirmed the opinion given in Exh. P.W. 1/B on the basis of test performed by him. Therefore, we have no reason to discard the opinion of K.M. Varshney (P.W. 1) and the submission of the accused has no merit. 21. Lastly it is contended by the accused that CFSL, Hyderabad is not authorised to carry out tests of the contraband seized in this case. He drew our attention to the definition of "Chemical Analyser" as contained in section 2(c) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called the said Rules) which is as under :-- " (c) "Chemical Analyser" means the Chief Medical Officer, Public Health Laboratory, Directorate of Health Services, Panaji-Goa, and includes any officer authorised by him in this behalf or any officer not below the rank of Junior Scientific Officer attached to the Officer of Drugs Controller, Directorate of Health Services, Panaji-Goa, and appointed for this purpose;" His further contention is that in case facilities are not available in the Public Health Laboratory, Panaji, Goa, it is the Chemical Analyser who can forward the contraband for examination to CFSL, Hyderabad but the Police cannot directly forward the contraband to CFSL, Hyderabad. His further contention is that the machinery provided under the said Rules has to be strictly adhered to since the violation of the Act imposes stringent penalties. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Faria urged before us that in the Public Health Laboratory, Panaji, Goa there are no facilities for analysing contraband LSD codeine and ecstacy and since in this case the contraband drugs attached included LSD, condeine and ecstacy tablets, the contraband attached in this case were forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad which has jurisdiction over the territory comprising the State of Goa. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor had produced before us letter of CFSL, Hyderabad specifying that the Laboratory had jurisdiction to analyse the sample from the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry. In this connection, learned Public Prosecutor had produced before us letter of CFSL, Hyderabad specifying that the Laboratory had jurisdiction to analyse the sample from the States of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry. He also produced the decision taken in this behalf that in case of seizure of contraband for which facility of analysis is not available in the Public Health Laboratory, Goa, such contraband should be forwarded for analysis to CFSL, Hyderabad. It is in this set of facts that the contention advanced by the accused is required to be examined. It is not a case where P.W., 1 Varshney from the CFSL, Hyderabad is not competent to analyse the contraband. His competency has not been challenged, but the only objection which has been raised is that CFSL, Hyderabad is not authorised to analyse the contraband attached in this case. P.W. 1 Varshney was cross-examined at length and he has proved that the material in sealed envelopes MO. 4/A-1 to MO. 4/E-1 contained LSD, charas and codeine. The articles attached were sent by the police directly in view of the decision and the fact that facility for analysis of LSD, codeine and ecstacy are not available in Public Health Laboratory, Goa. At any rate no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused in respect of these submissions made by him on this score. In our opinion, viewed in this light, we do not find merit in the submission of the accused in this behalf. 22. The charges against the accused have been duly proved by the prosecution with the evidence of pancha (P.W. 3) and P.S.I. Raut Desai (P.W. 4) who have proved the recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused. The prosecution has also established through the evidence of P.S.I. Raut Dessai (P.W. 4), Manohar Joshi (P.W. 2) and P.W. 1 Varashney Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Hyderabad that the contraband which has been analysed is the same which was recovered from the possession of the accused and there has been no tampering with the envelopes containing contraband. With the evidence of P.W. 1 Varshney it has been established that the contraband attached was L.S.D., charas and codeine on the basis of the tests performed by him. With the evidence of P.W. 1 Varshney it has been established that the contraband attached was L.S.D., charas and codeine on the basis of the tests performed by him. We have no reason to discard the results of analysis arrived at by P.W. 1 Varshney. The accused in his evidence under section 315 Cr.P.C. admits recovery of substances similar to the ones contained in envelopes MO. 4/A-1 to MO. 4/E-1 as already pointed out in para 9 of this judgment, though according to him the same were colours for photographs, modelling clay and analgesic tablets. His answers pertaining on this aspect are evasive in nature. P.W. 1 Varshney found that the said substances were L.S.D., charas and codeine. The Special Judge has examined the evidence on record in correct perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that the charges have been duly established by the prosecution on the basis of the material on record. We, therefore, find that the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant is well founded and does not call for any interference. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.