JUDGMENT - P.V. HARDAS, J.:---The appellant stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No. 28 of 2000, and is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This conviction and sentence is assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are set out hereunder :- On 8th March, 2000, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. received a specific and reliable information, through his sources, that one Kashmiri person, aged about 20 years, who is selling handicraft items at the Anjuna flea market, is selling charas. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. accordingly reduced this information into writing and a copy thereof was handed over to P.W. 6, Shrish Thorat, Dy. S.P. of Anti Narcotic Cell. The said information, which was reduced into writing by P.W. 4 Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. is at Exh. P.W. 4/D Colly. Thereafter, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. secured the presence of two panch witnesses, P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar and one Raju Naik, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. informed the said two panch witnesses that he had received specific and reliable information and a copy had been handed over to P.W. 6, Shirish Thorat, Dy. S.P. personally by P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. then introduced the members of the raiding party which consisted of P.W. 6, Shirish Thorat, Dy. S.P. P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. Salim Shaikh, P.S.I. Head Constable P.T. Naik, Gurudas Naik, Mohan Naik and two Police Constables. The raiding party consisting of these Police Officers and the panchas thereafter left the Police Station in jeep No. GGE 8 and two private motor-cycles. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. carried with him a seal of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa -4 with Ashoka Emblem while Head Constable Mohan Naik carried with him a typewriter of Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station and Police Constable Sadashiv Shetye carried with him a kit box containing packing, sealing and weighing material etc. The raiding party reached Anjuna at 2.00 p.m. and parked their vehicles and went towards Dando Anjuna. 3. The raiding party reached Anjuna at 2.00 p.m. and parked their vehicles and went towards Dando Anjuna. 3. The raiding party reached the flea market and concealed themselves near the area where the Kashmiris have their handicraft stalls. They had reached the flea market at about 2.25 p.m. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. spotted one person whose description tallied with the description he had received. At about 2.55 p.m., they saw the said person talking to a foreigner and then hurriedly going back to the rear of the stall and from the sands, he removed something and put it into his right hand side pant pocket. While the said person was coming towards the stall, the raiding party immediately rushed and surrounded him. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. introduced himself to the said person and on asking, the said person disclosed his name as Hilal Ahmed, resident of Kashmir and presently staying at Calangute, Goa. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. then told him that he had received specific and reliable information that he was selling charas and wanted to take his personal search. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. then introduced the members of the raiding party including the panchas. Before commencing the search, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. apprised the said Hilal Ahmed that he had a right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and also that he had a right to take the search of the members of the raiding party including the panchas. The said Hilal Ahmed declined either to have himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate or to take the search of the members of raiding party. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. noticed that the said person was wearing a bluish colour long sleeve shirt and a dark blue pant. During the personal search of the said person, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. found two pieces of greenish dark brown substance in the right hand side pant pocket of the said person. After observing and smelling the same. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. informed the members of the raiding party that the said substance was suspected to be charas. The said substance was weighed and it was found to weight 15 grams. After observing and smelling the same. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. informed the members of the raiding party that the said substance was suspected to be charas. The said substance was weighed and it was found to weight 15 grams. The substance was then put in an envelope which was sealed with seven seals of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa-4 with the Ashoka Emblem. The said envelope was signed by P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I., P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar and the other panch Raju Naik. The accused, from whose possession the said substance charas was said to be recovered, declined to sign the envelope. 4. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. then went to the approximate place where he had earlier observed the accused putting something in his pocket and on searching from the sand, he found a white colour polythene bag containing some substance. On opening the bag and on observing and smelling the said substance, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. informed the members of the raiding party that it was charas. It was weighed and it was found to weigh 300 grams. Thereafter, the said substance was packed and sealed by observing the same procedure as was observed in respect of the sealing of the earlier substance weighing 15 grams. During the personal search of the accused, Rs. 1,100/- was found in the left hand side pant pocket. The currency notes were also put in the envelope and were packed and sealed. Since the accused did not have valid documents for possession of charas, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. informed him that possessing drugs without valid documents was an offence. A panchanama of the entire events was drawn which is at Exh. P.W. 3/A. The seizure report in respect of the seizure of the contraband is at Exh. P.W. 3/B. Thereafter, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. informed the accused that he had a right to search the members of the raiding party including the panchas but the accused declined to do so. 5. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. thereafter went to the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station and registered an offence against the accused. He filed a complaint at Exh. P.W. 4/A. He then handed over the property to P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. The seal was also handed over by P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. to P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. along with a letter Exh. He filed a complaint at Exh. P.W. 4/A. He then handed over the property to P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. The seal was also handed over by P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. to P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. along with a letter Exh. P.W. 4/B. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. then gave an intimation to the Dy. S.P. in compliance of section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is at Exh. P.W. 4/C. 6. The samples were then given in the custody of P.W. 2, Manohar Joshi for onward transmission to the Analyst P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare. P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, after performing the various tests by his report at Exh. P.W. 1/C opined that the substance and the two samples were charas. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the present appellant. 7. The learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, framed a charge vide Exh. 3 against the present appellant for an offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to establish the charge against the appellant, examined six witnesses. The appellant, during the trial, denied the possession of 300 gms. of charas but admitted the seizure of 15 grams of charas and raised a plea that the said 15 grams of charas was for his personal consumption. The learned Special Judge after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the offence against the appellant and, therefore, had convicted and sentenced him as aforestated. 8. P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar, the panch, after referring as to how they had reached the place of occurrence, stated that the accused was talking to a foreigner and thereafter the accused went about 50 metres behind the stall and was searching for something in the sand. When the accused was coming back, the members of the raiding party surrounded him. In the cross-examination, P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar, admits that the area which was searched by P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. before finding the polythene bag containing 300 gms. of charas was of the size of about 100 to 105 sq. metres. In the cross-examination, he stoutly denied the suggestion that the accused had not gone behind the stall nor was he searching in the sand. of charas was of the size of about 100 to 105 sq. metres. In the cross-examination, he stoutly denied the suggestion that the accused had not gone behind the stall nor was he searching in the sand. The panchanama at Exhibit P.W. 3/A clearly refers the accused going hurriedly behind the stall, taking something from the sand and putting it in his right hand side pocket. The evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I., is to the effect that the accused after talking to a foreigner hurriedly went behind the stall and removed something from the sand and put it into his right hand side pocket. In the cross-examination, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. gave the following admission:--- "I was continuously watching the accused. I could only see that accused bent down to remove something but I cannot say whether he had put his hand in the sand to remove what he had taken and put in his right hand pant pocket." 9. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has urged before me that the evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. that the appellant by going behind the stall had put something in his pocket is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar, only refers to the fact that the appellant was seen searching for something in the sand, whereas, the evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. is to the effect that the appellant had put something in his right hand side pant pocket. Thus, on the basis of this, it is contended that conscious possession of 300 grams of charas which was recovered about 50 metres from the appellant's stall cannot be attributed to the appellant. 10. Mr. A.P. Lawande, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. is clear when he states that he had seen the appellant putting something in his right hand side pant pocket. After the appellant was seen putting something in his right hand side pant pocket, the appellant was immediately surrounded and on search, 15 grams of charas was found in the right hand side pant pocket. After the appellant was seen putting something in his right hand side pant pocket, the appellant was immediately surrounded and on search, 15 grams of charas was found in the right hand side pant pocket. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that besides 15 grams of charas nothing else was found in the right hand side pant pocket of the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the Court is entitled to draw an inference regarding conscious possession of the 300 grams of charas which was found at a distance of about 50 metres to the rear of the appellant's stall. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that in his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C., the appellant has not offered any explanation for his conduct in going to the rear of the stall and for his conduct of picking something from the sand and putting it into the right hand side pant pocket. It is also urged by the learned Advocate appearing for the State that coincidentally the charas found on personal search of the appellant and the charas found in the polythene bag in the sand had sandal wood fragrance. 11. P.W. 3 Mayabhushan Nagvekar, in the evidence does not state that he had seen the appellant after bending down and putting something in his right hand side pant pocket. All that he says is that the appellant was seen searching for something in the sand. In the cross-examination of this witness, the defence is not able to shatter his version that the appellant after talking to a foreigner went about 50 metres behind his stall and was searching for something in the sand. No doubt, the panchanama at Exhibit P.W. 3/A contains a recital that the appellant had put something in his right hand side pant pocket. However, the panchanama is not a substantive piece of evidence. It could only be used to either contradict or corroborate the panchas. P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar, was not contradicted with the said recital in the panchanama. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. in his evidence, states that the appellant after talking to a foreigner went 50 meters behind the stall, removed something from the sand and put it in his right hand side pant pocket. P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar, was not contradicted with the said recital in the panchanama. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. in his evidence, states that the appellant after talking to a foreigner went 50 meters behind the stall, removed something from the sand and put it in his right hand side pant pocket. While the appellant was so returning to his stall, the members of the raiding party surrounded the appellant. In the cross-examination, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. admits that he was continuously watching the accused and he could only see that the accused bent down to remove something but he could not see whether the accused had put his hand in the sand to remove what had been taken out and put in the right hand side pant pocket. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, this admission of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. negatives that he had seen the appellant putting something in his right hand side pant pocket. I am afraid, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, is not correct in advancing the submission. All that P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. says is that he could not say whether the accused had put his hand in the sand to remove what had been taken out and put in the right hand side pant pocket of the accused. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. admits that the appellant had bent down to remove something and had taken something from the sand and put it into his right hand side pant pocket. P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. by virtue of this admission, states that he could not say whether the accused had put his hand in the sand. This is an honest reply of a witness who was witnessing the events from a certain distance after he had taken pains to conceal his presence. It is quite possible that from the distance at which P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. had concealed himself, he could not see whether the appellant had put his hand in the sand before taking something and putting it into his right hand side pant pocket. 12. It is quite possible that from the distance at which P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. had concealed himself, he could not see whether the appellant had put his hand in the sand before taking something and putting it into his right hand side pant pocket. 12. The question before me, therefore, is can the appellant be said to be in conscious possession of 300 grams of charas which was found buried at a depth of about 8 inches in the sand and whether in the absence of a corroborative statement of panch witness and whether the evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. could be accepted for sustaining the conviction? 13. The requirement of law is that the search and seizure are to be conducted in the presence of independent panch witnesses. In this case, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to denude P.W. 3, Mayabhushan Nagvekar of the status of an independent panch witness. It is true that he has not corroborated the testimony of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. that the appellant had picked something from the sand and put it in his right hand side pant pocket. As I have pointed out earlier, this fact is mentioned in the panchanama at Exhibit P.W. 3/A. The evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. on this aspect is also corroborated by the recitals in the complaint at Exhibit P.W. 4/A. The said recital reads as under:--- "At about 14.55 hrs. we saw that the said person talking with one foreigner and hurriedly went behind the stall and took something out from the sand and put the same in his right side pant pocket. While he was returning towards the stall immediately we all rushed towards him and surrounded him." 14. The conduct of the appellant is also significant. The appellant was seen talking to a foreigner and hurriedly went behind the stall and while he was returning to the stall, he was apprehended with 15 grams of charas in his right hand side pant pocket. The statement of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, is corroborated by the fact that in the right hand side pant pocket 15 grams of charas was found. The appellant has offered no explanation whatsoever to this conduct of the appellant in hurriedly going back behind the stall and putting something in his right hand side pant pocket. The statement of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, is corroborated by the fact that in the right hand side pant pocket 15 grams of charas was found. The appellant has offered no explanation whatsoever to this conduct of the appellant in hurriedly going back behind the stall and putting something in his right hand side pant pocket. When questioned under section 313 Cri.P.C., the appellant has stated this to be false. The finding of 15 grams of charas in his pocket establishes a direct link with the contraband that was found behind the stall of the appellant. The evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. relating to the appellant putting something in his pocket, was put to the appellant vide question No. 23 in his statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. All that the appellant says is "false". This conduct on the part of the appellant and finding of 15 grams of charas according to me, is a very strong circumstance which shows his knowledge and possession over 300 grams of charas which was subsequently found buried at a depth of 8 inches in the sand. 15. It is next contended by Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to establish a nexus between the sample which was seized at the scene of offence and the sample which was analysed by P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, what was seized was 300 grams of charas and what was received by P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, was 285 grams of charas. Thus, according to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt as it could not be said that what was analysed by P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, was the same sample which was seized by P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. in view of the discrepancy in the weight. I have given my anxious consideration to this submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, had weighed the contents on an electric balance. The difference in weight is marginal i.e. 15 grams. The difference in weight can be attributed to the balance used by P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, which must be sophisticated and sensitive balance. P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, had weighed the contents on an electric balance. The difference in weight is marginal i.e. 15 grams. The difference in weight can be attributed to the balance used by P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, which must be sophisticated and sensitive balance. In view of the difference in weight, I have examined the evidence carefully to rule out the possibility of the samples having been tampered with. In this regard, the evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. is that after going back to the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, he had handed over the property and also the seal to P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. along with a covering letter Exhibit P.W. 4/B. P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. in his evidence, acknowledges to have received the letter Exhibit P.W. 4/B from P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. and three sealed envelopes of which an entry is taken in the station diary register and also in the muddemal register. P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. then states that the property was kept in safe custody and on the next day, he had sent the sealed envelopes to C.I.D. Crime Branch with the letter containing the specimen seals which is at Exhibit P.W. 1/B. P.W. 5, Uday Naik, P.S.I. also handed over to him the seal of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa-4. P.W. 2, Manohar Joshi, states that on 9th March, 2000, i.e. on the next day of depositing the property in the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, he had received a letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Panaji and a letter addressed to the Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji, from the P.S.I. Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, dated 8th March, 2000, in duplicate with specimen seal impressions of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa-4. He had also received a seal cover containing 15 grams of charas and another big size cover containing 300 grams of charas. He then acknowledged the receipt on the copy of the letter which was marked as Exhibit P.W. 2/A. He further states that he had kept the sealed covers in his steel cupboard with lock and key and on the next day, he had forwarded the samples for analysis. In the cross-examination, he states that the keys of the cupboard were with him and each envelope had seven seals. In the cross-examination, he states that the keys of the cupboard were with him and each envelope had seven seals. He also denied the suggestion that he had neither received any seal packets nor had he sent them to the Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji. He also denied the suggestion that he had tampered with the sealed envelopes. The evidence of P.W. 1, Mahesh Kaissare, is that on 10th March, 2000, the Office of the Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji, had received two sealed brown paper envelopes, each having seven seals from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Panaji. He had compared the seals and tallied them with the specimen seal impressions and had found that the seals tallied and were intact. Thus, from this chain of evidence, it is clear that the samples had not been tampered with. The evidence of P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. inspires the confidence of the Court. At the close of his cross-examination, P.W. 4, Rajan Prabhudessai, P.S.I. emerges as a truthful witness, having a ring of truth. Thus, despite there being difference in the weight in the sample which was received for analysis vis-a-vis the sample which was seized at the spot, I am not inclined to attach any weight to this discrepancy. 16. After giving my anxious consideration to the evidence on record and the points urged by the learned Advocates before me, I am satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 17. In the result, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as recorded by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, in Special Criminal Case No. 28 of 2000 is hereby confirmed. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. ------