JUDGMENT:- This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 2001, for having been found in possession of 1.075 kgs. of charas. 2. The accused was charges and tried under the said section on the allegation that on receipt of prior information that the accused was staying in Room No.2 Safari Lodge at Panaji, a raid was conducted on 25-3-2003 at about 18.20 hours and the accused was found in the said room, on the first floor of the said lodge, and though nothing was found on his personal search, on checking one of the beds charas were found under the mattress. 3. The accused therefore came to be charged and tried, as aforesaid. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses to support the charge and produced several documents. The learned Special Judge upon assessing the evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused. 4. The case of the prosecution could be dealt with in two aspects. 5. The first as regards the search and seizure. This case was supported by the evidence of the Police Inspector Shri. P.I. Paesl PW-7, Dy. S. P. D'Souza/PW-6, Oliveira/PW5, Lokre/PW-4 and Bengare/PW-3. As per P.I. Paes/PW-7 on 25-3-2003 he had received specific and reliable information at about 16.40 hours that one Nepali of stated description was staying in rented Room No.2 in Safari Lodge at Panaji for about two days as was likely to leave to his native place and that he was having drugs and therefore he secured the presence of two panchas and proceeded along with the raiding party to Room No.2 of the said Lodge which was found closed from inside and upon knocking the door the accused opened the said room to whom he told about the reliable information and about his intention to take his personal search and of the room. As per him, nothing was found on the person of the accused but there were two beds and one table and a chair, in the said room and when the mattress of the bed on the right hand side was lifted there was a polythene bag having blackish substances which were weighed and found to be 1.115 kgs. As per him, nothing was found on the person of the accused but there were two beds and one table and a chair, in the said room and when the mattress of the bed on the right hand side was lifted there was a polythene bag having blackish substances which were weighed and found to be 1.115 kgs. and which were packed and sealed. 6. In cross-examination. P.I. Paes/PW-7 stated that no other person was occupying the said room as per records of the hotel register. In further cross-examination, he stated that he could not say which bed was occupied by the accused. He also stated that the said substance was found under the mattress and could not have been seen normally unless the mattress was lifted. On the same aspect, Oliveira/PW-5, the Manager of the said Safari Lodge where the accused was allegedly found, stated that he was not present when the raid was conducted but the accused had booked in the said Safari Lodge on 19-3-2003 along with a group of 9 persons. Oliveira/PW-5 further stated that the accused had booked two rooms and the accused was residing in Room No.2 with his wife and a minor son, aged about two years. The hotel register was seized and according to Lokre/PW-4 on 26-3-2003 but according to P. I. Paes/PW.7 it was seized on 25-3-2003. According to P.I. Paes/PW-7 nothing incriminating was found in the said room, and, it is difficult to believe that if the accused had booked Room No.2 of the said hotel as to how nothing belonging to the accused was not found therein like a ticket or a passport or his other belongings, as submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused. The hotel register, which according to Lokre/PW-2 was seized in his presence on 26-3-2003, shows that Room No.2 was occupied on 16-3-2003 by one Sachin from Aurangabad. This part of the register shows that there was Room No.2 in the said hotel, but, what the prosecution has produced through Oliveira/PW-5 are four receipts, two being in relation to Room No. 102 and the other two, in relation to Room No. 104. There has been no explanation from the prosecution that in case the accused had occupied Room No.2 as to why the receipts Exh.42 colly had to be issued in relation to Room Nos.102 and 104. There has been no explanation from the prosecution that in case the accused had occupied Room No.2 as to why the receipts Exh.42 colly had to be issued in relation to Room Nos.102 and 104. The said register shows that as against Room Nos.104 and 102 an entry was made in the name of Tajendra and family. The word "Tajendra" is written in Devanagari and the words "and family" have been written in Roman. The word "Dansur" in Roman has been added after the word Tajendra, written in Devanagari. There is no dispute that the name of the accused in Dansur Ghartim Nagar. The name of the accused is certainly not Tajendra Dansur. A perusal of the said hotel register shows that the word "Dansur" in Roman has been added to the word "Tajendra" in Devanagari to give an semblance that the said entry pertains to the accused. As already noted in case the accused was occupying Room No.2 as stated by P. I. Paes/PW-7 as well as Oliveira PW-5 the said register should have shows in column No.18, Room No.2 and not Room Nos.l04 and 102. 7. Lokre/PW-4 has categorically stated that the said register was produced by Oliveira/PW-5 on 26-3-2003 and it is but obvious that it was produced on that day i.e. on 26-32003 as stated by him and which is also the date on the panchanama to which he was one of the panch witnesses and which was made on 26-3-2003. The muddemal register, a copy of which was produced, also shows that it was seized on 26-3-2003. The said register nevertheless shows that it was signed by the panch witnesses on 25-3-2003. When P.I. Paes/PW-7 was questioned regarding this aspect, P.I. Paes/PW-7 stated that the Manager had produced the said register on the same day i.e. on 25-3-2003. P. I. Paes/PW-7 again specifically denied the suggestion that the hotel register was not attached on the same day. The said register nevertheless shows that it was signed by the panch witnesses on 25-3-2003. When P.I. Paes/PW-7 was questioned regarding this aspect, P.I. Paes/PW-7 stated that the Manager had produced the said register on the same day i.e. on 25-3-2003. P. I. Paes/PW-7 again specifically denied the suggestion that the hotel register was not attached on the same day. In other words, P.I. Paes/PW-7 has made a false statement that the said register was attached on the same day i.e. on 25-3-2003 when according to Lokre/PW-4, Oliveira/PW-5 as well as the panchanama Exh.39 as well as the muddemal register it was seized on the next day i.e. on 26-3-2003 and if it was seized on 26-3-2003 one fails to understand as to how both the panchas could have signed the same on 25-3-2003, as can be seen from column No.17 of the said register. The said register also shows that it carries entries of 26-3-2003 and therefore it could not have been seized on 25-3-2003 as stated by P. I. PaesIPW-7. The signatures of the panchas with date as 25-32003 in column No.17 of the said register in addition to adding the name Dansur when name Tajendra appears on the register it is nothing but a clear attempt in fabricating evidence by P.I. Paes/PW-7. The version of P. I. Paes/ PW -7 is therefore suspected and the very story of the prosecution that the accused was found in Room No.2 did not deserve to be given any credence whatsoever. One fails to understand why OliveiraIPW-5 had to add the name Dansur to Tajendra only for the purpose of preparing the bail. If the name Tajendra alone was held to be sufficient whilst the name of the guest was recorded on 19-3-2003 in column No.4 of the said register, the bills could also have been prepared in the said name Tajendra. It is but obvious that the name Dansur has been added subsequently on the said register so as to make it appear that it was occupied by the accused. 8. The case of the prosecution cannot be allowed to end there. As per P.I. Paes/PW-7, Mustaq/PW-3 and Vijay M. Surlekar were the panch witnesses. It is but obvious that the name Dansur has been added subsequently on the said register so as to make it appear that it was occupied by the accused. 8. The case of the prosecution cannot be allowed to end there. As per P.I. Paes/PW-7, Mustaq/PW-3 and Vijay M. Surlekar were the panch witnesses. On behalf of the accused, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court dated 24-3-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.53/2004 in the case of (B. Chandramohan Vs., State of Goa), to show that the said Surlekar has stood as a panch witness once before 29-1-2002 and thereafter on 15 occasions. Needless to observe the said Surlekar is a stock panch witness of P.I. Paes/P.W.7. As far as Bengare/PW-3 is concerned, P.I. Paes/PW-7 admitted that he had acted as a panch witness at his instance in about 4 to 5 cases. In cross-examination, P.I.Paes/PW-7 stated that he had found out the antecedents of the said two panch witnesses before requesting them to act as such but at the same time he stated that he did not recall if the said Bengare/PW-3 was arrested by the Police Station in a theft case. In further cross-examination he stated that he could not recall whether Bengare/PW-3 was arrested in a theft case because at the relevant time he was a P.S.I. A suggestion that he had made false statements that he had verified the antecedents of the panch witnesses was denied by him. The evidence of Bengare/PW-3 shows that he was arrested in one theft case along with another person and was released on bail. The evidence further shows that he was acquitted in the said case. At the same time he stated that he did not know if two theft cases were registered against him at Calangute Police Station. The answers given by Bengare/PW-3 give a clear impression that he was involved in more than one theft case. Bengare/PW-3 categorically stated that he did not know P.I. Paes/PW-7 personally prior to the raid and this inspite of the fact that P.I. Paes/PW - 7 has admitted that Bengare/PW - 3 had stood as a panch witness in 4 to 5 cases investigated by him. In further cross-examination, Bengare/PW-3 stated that he did not recall if he had acted as a panch witness in any drug case investigated by P.I. Paes/PW-7 and prior to the case at hand. In further cross-examination, Bengare/PW-3 stated that he did not recall if he had acted as a panch witness in any drug case investigated by P.I. Paes/PW-7 and prior to the case at hand. When copy of the search panchanama in the case of accused Mangal Singh was shown to Bengare/PW-3 he admitted that he had acted as a panch witness in Case No.4/2002 but again stated that he did not recall it he had acted as a panch witness in respect of drug cases involving against Yallappa Chalwadi, Ron Chayeak, Mehraj Rehman Watoo and Dilbahadur. In further cross-examination, he stated that he could not say anything to the suggestion that he had acted as a panch witness in the said cases as he could not recall the same. In further cross-examination he stated that he was a pilot by profession. The panchanama Exh.32 shows that his occupation is business. In further cross-examination, Bengare/PW-3 stated that he knew Surlekar prior to the raid as he had seen him at Panaji but he did not recall if he had acted as a panch witness alongwith Surlekar in any drug case. He denied the suggestion that he acted as. a panch witness along with Vijay Surlekar in a number of drug cases and has acted as a panch witness at least in 15 cases at the instance of ANC Police Station. He also feigned ignorance whether he had acted a panch witness involving accused Aspat Ahmed (Special Criminal Case No.9/2003). The evidence of Bengare/PW-3 when read with the evidence of P.I. Paes/PW-7 shows that Bengare/PW-3 has acted, as a panch witness in more than 4 to 5 cases and thus was a pliable witness at the hands of P. I. Paes/PW7. In other words, the evidence of P. I. Paes/ PW -7 shows that the search was witnessed, if at all, by two witnesses who were a his beck and call and in a situation like this no reliance could have been placed on the evidence of Bengare/PW-3. The observations made in B. Chandramohan Vs. State of Goa (unreported decision dated 24-3-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.53/2004) would be worth reproducing: "I really fail to understand as to what sort of a Superior Officer Dy. The observations made in B. Chandramohan Vs. State of Goa (unreported decision dated 24-3-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.53/2004) would be worth reproducing: "I really fail to understand as to what sort of a Superior Officer Dy. S. P. D'Souza/PW-5 was, so as not to have advised P. I. Paes/PW-7 that he should desist from pliable panch witnesses and that too one of whom had a criminal background and this inspite of the Government having given instructions to call on Government servants to act as panch witnesses". See (Aspaq N. Ahmed Vs. State of Goa), 2006(2) A.I.R. Bom.R. 111 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2089]. 9. As stated by this Court in the aforesaid case, corroboration by independent evidence is not a rule of law but one of caution and prudence. It gives an assurance whether the version given by the Police Officer is true or not. This is also not the case where the evidence of P.I. Paes/PW-7 inspires confidence. In fact, it does not. It appears that P. I. Paes/PW-7 was only interested in securing pliable witnesses, if at all they were present, for the search and seizure. As stated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Bhagwatsingh Gaud Vs. State of Goa), 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 1421 the minimum care expected of a search officer of a P.I. level is that he takes independent panch witnesses to witness the search and seizure and if such an officer does not act with reasonable prudence the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. The evidence of P.1. Paes/PW-7 does not inspire confidence inasmuch as manipulations are writ large in his evidence and documents produced by him. The evidence of Bengare/PW-3 who is otherwise a stock witness could also not again be relied upon to base a conviction in a serious offence for which the accused was charged. The very case of the prosecution that the accused was found as alleged, in Room No.2 of Safari Hotel could not have been accepted as free from doubt and going a little further and assuming that the accused was found in the said room, the accused could not have been saddled with criminal responsibility for the parcel which was found under one of the mattresses in a situation where according to Oliveira/PW-5 the accused had come with a group of 9 persons in all. The said parcel would have belonged to anyone of the said 9 persons and on this count also the accused ought to have been given benefit of doubt. 10. The second aspect is as regards the custody of the seized article and its subsequent analysis. As stated by Kaissare/PW1 on 26-3-2003 the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration had received the said seized article (Exh.1). According to him, the seals fixed on the seized article were intact, individually covered with a cello tape and tallied with the specimen seal impression sent separately. As per him, he carried the analysis of the seized article on 28-3-2003 and found its weight to be 1.075 kgs. without wrappings and upon analysis he found that the substances analyzed had contained charas. P.I. Paes/PW7 stated that after the seizure, he returned to the Police Station along with the accused and the attached property and then he lodged his complaint on behalf of the State. He stated that he handed over the seal under a letter to Dy. S.P. D'Souza/PW-6, at the spot. The said letter was produced as Exh.51. On this aspect, Dy. S.P. D'Souza/PW-6 stated that P.I. Paes/PW7 had handed over the seal to him at the spot but the letter was subsequently handed over to him at the Police Station through an outward number 537. Bengare/PW-3 stated that the seal had continued with P.I. Paes/PW-7 till they came to the Police Station. In other words, there are three versions as regards the custody of the sea!. The first that the seal along with the letter was handed over to Dy. S. P. D'Souza on the spot. The second given by Dy. S. P. D'Souza that the seal was handed to him on the spot but the letter was given to him at the Police Station and the third from Bengare/PW3 who says that the seal had continued to remain with P.I. Paes/PW-7 till they reached the Police Station. It is not the case of the prosecution that after seizure, P.I. Paes/PW - 7 has handed over the seized article to any other officer. All that P.I. Paes/PW-7 has stated is that he had made a record on the muddemal register and produced a copy of the muddemal register at Exh.61. The copy of the station diary was produced at Exh.62 and a perusal of both the said documents makes amusing reading. All that P.I. Paes/PW-7 has stated is that he had made a record on the muddemal register and produced a copy of the muddemal register at Exh.61. The copy of the station diary was produced at Exh.62 and a perusal of both the said documents makes amusing reading. As against entry at serial No.5/03 on 25-3-2003 the particulars of seized articles are shown, as containing 1.115 kgs. of charas. However, the disposal, shown on 26-3-2003 shows that what was dispatched was the weight a substance weighing 5388 kgs. If the dispatch of the seized article to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration is shown on the muddemal register on 26-3-2003, on the station diary the dispatch is shown at 22.00 hours of 25-3-2003. Another entry is recorded on the station diary at 22.10 hours stating that Constable Vernekar (Buckle No.4683) had returned since the Scientific Assistant was not present and that the seized article was kept with P.I. Vincy Paes. Mapari/PW-2 has stated that on 26-3-2003 he had received he letter addressed to SP cm along with the letter addressed to the Director of Food and Drugs Administration along with the seized article from Constable Vernekar (Buckle No.4683) which he forwarded to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration. In other words, the evidence of the prosecution shows that the seal as well as the seized article had remained in the custody of P.I. Paes/PW7 from 25-3-2003 to 26-3-2003 i.e. till it was dispatched to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration to be analyzed by Kaissare/PW-1. The entries on the muddemal register Exh.61 and the Station Diary Exh.62 do not at all tally and the discrepancies on the muddemal register is a clear indication that it is manipulated. There is no explanation why the quantity should have been different. Moreover, if the said seized article is stated to have been sent with the said Constable Buckle No.4683 on 26-3-2003 on the muddemal register it is shown as sent on the same day at about 22.00 hours with the same Constable on the station diary. However, what turns out ultimately is that the seized article as well as the seal used in sealing the same had remained with P.I. Paes/PW-7 from the time of its seizure till the time of its dispatch to the Laboratory. In this context, reference could be made to the case of (Gopal Bahadur Vs. However, what turns out ultimately is that the seized article as well as the seal used in sealing the same had remained with P.I. Paes/PW-7 from the time of its seizure till the time of its dispatch to the Laboratory. In this context, reference could be made to the case of (Gopal Bahadur Vs. State of Goa), 2005 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 449 wherein this Court observed that "the Courts have always frowned upon the practice of Police Officers keeping the custody of the seal as well as of the seized articles for long in the hands of the same Officer. In other words, a person who has the custody of the seized articles and the seal used to seal the same, should not continue to have both for long because such practices can lead to tampering with the seized article. The Act has taken special care that in normal course after the seizure, the seized drug should be handed over in the custody of the Officer in charge of the nearest Police Station. No such provision is made in case of the seal". The good purpose, the safeguards created, assurance rendered gets frustrated by allowing such an Officer to have the seals in his possession as well as the sealed article in his possession or custody. When sentence provided is severe, the procedures followed should be beyond suspicion and aboveboard. In other words, the Officer having the custody of the seized article and the custody of the seals, used to seal the seized article, should not be the same. All these procedures are required to be followed in order to avoid the possibility of tampering with the sample and to lend assurance to the Court that in a given case there was no such tampering. In the case of (Dinesh Palyekar Vs. State of Goa), 2006(6) A.I.R. Bom. R. 171 this Court had referred to the case of (Rajesh J.A vashti Vs. State of Goa), 2004 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 322 wherein the Apex Court had noted that the question was not now much was seized but whether there was actual seizure and whether what was seized was really sent for chemical analysis and since prosecution was unable to explain the discrepancy, it rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful an that, what could be least said was that a serious doubt was created about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. As already seen, there has been a clear attempt on the part of P.I. Paes/PW-7 in manipulating and fabricating the evidence against the accused and such a case could not have been accepted by the learned Special Judge in convicting the accused. The accused therefore certainly deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. 11. A copy of the Judgment be sent to Director General of Police in order to take appropriate action against P.I. Paes/PW -7. If the case ends in acquittal it is because the sins of omission and commission committed by him and described herein above. There has been no explanation as to why independent witnesses could not be secured as observed in case of Aspaq Ahmed Vs. State of Goa, [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2089] (supra). This is one of several cases before this Court investigated by the said P.I. Paes which has ended in acquittal. 12. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to succeed. The Judgment/Order dated 30-4-2005 of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa is hereby set aside. Consequently, the accused is hereby acquitted under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. He shall be set to liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case. Appeal succeeded.