N. A. BRITTO, J.:- This appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced for different offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act, for short) by Judgment dated 24-2-2006 of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, Goa. 2. The complaint against the accused was filed by Shri. M. P. Vaz, Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Margao. The accused was charged and tried with the allegation that he was found in illegal possession of certain assorted drugs/psychotropic substances on 8-12-2002 between 10.00 hours to 13.15 hours when he was interceped and searched. The accused was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) with the allegation that 1.35 kgs. of hashish was found in his shoulder bag; under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) with the allegation that 62 gms. of ganja was found in the house occupied by him; under Section 22(b) with the allegation that 6.67 gms. of ecstasy tablets were found on his person in the left back side pant pocket; under Section 21(b) with the allegation that 49 gms. suspected to be of amphetamine were also found in the said residential house. 3. In support of the complaint the Complainant had examined six witnesses including himself, the Chemical Analyzers and an independent witness besides another Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise. Confessional statements were also recorded in terms of Section 67 of the Act. 4. The case of the accused was one of denial. The accused stated that one tall Custom Officer had assaulted him and forced him to sign certain blank papers which he did. The accused stated that he was having pain in the left side of his abdomen and he was referred to Asio Hospital where he learnt that there was fracture to his ribs. The accused examined Dr. Anil Humraskar who had examined the accused on 9-12-2002 at Asilo Hospital. 5. The learned Special Judge concluded that the Complainant through the panch witness and Officers had clearly established due compliance with the mandate of Section 50 of the Act prior to the personal search of the accused leading to the recovery of 1.35 kgs. The accused examined Dr. Anil Humraskar who had examined the accused on 9-12-2002 at Asilo Hospital. 5. The learned Special Judge concluded that the Complainant through the panch witness and Officers had clearly established due compliance with the mandate of Section 50 of the Act prior to the personal search of the accused leading to the recovery of 1.35 kgs. of hashish from the shoulder bag carried by him and that the Complainant had also duly established that from the search of the room occupied by the accused were taken the stated drugs which as per the report of the Scientific Officer, CFSL, Hyderabad were positive for ecstasy and heroin weighing 6.67 and 45.25 gms., respectively. 6. As per the Complainant on 8-122002 at around 8.00 hours Superintendent PW5/Shri. Cruz had received reliable information that a person of stated description would be carrying sizable quantity of narcotic drugs and would be travelling on a Yamaha motor-cycle bearing No.GA-01-F-3535 to Vagator to deliver the same to his customer on the same day and that around 11.00 hours the information was discussed with Shri. Ferro, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and was also reduced in writing and submitted to him and to the Additional Commissioner, DRI, Mumbai and thereafter they proceeded near the spot, near the petrol pump at Anjuna at about 10.00 hours. The Complainant stated that two panchas were called and were explained about the receipt of the said information and they kept a vigil at the spot and at about 10.45 hours the said Yamaha motor-cycle with the person of the stated description earlier received, came and was signaled to stop. The Complainant stated that he identified himself and informed the said person about the said information and told him that he wanted to search him and his belongings for drugs and when asked about the contents of the said bag, the said person admitted that it contained hashish and thereafter Superintendent Shri. Cruz asked the person to open the bag and looked inside and saw some blackish substances in cigar, flats and one big flat slab in a polythene bag and as the spot was not found to be safe they requested the rider of the said motor-cycle to sit in the departmental vehicle and proceeded to the Customs House. The Complainant stated that prior to asking the rider to sit in the jeep, PW-5/Shri. Cruz had told the said rider that he should take their personal search which he declined. The Complainant further stated that the accused sat in the jeep with the said bag strapped around his neck till they reached Chapora while the motor-cycle was driven by one of the Customs Officers and upon reaching the Customs Office the accused was asked to keep the bag on the table and thereafter PW-5/Shri. Cruz offered the accused their personal search including that of the panch as which the accused declined and PW5/Shri. Cruz informed the accused that under the provisions of the Act he had an option to be searched before a Magistrate or independent Gazetted Officer which offer also the accused declined and thereafter PW-5/Shri. Cruz commenced the search and found cash of Rs.200/- and an identity card in the shirt pocket of the accused which was taken over for investigation. PW-5/Shri. Cruz also found a transparent polythene bag in his left side trouser pocket which contained coloured tablets and capsules which were emptied on a piece of paper and the tablets were found to be 30 in number and the capsules 6 in number which were tested with the Field Drug Testing Kit and was found positive for amphetamine and the contents of the capsules was also found to be positive for amphetamine. The Complainant stated that the said polythene bag containing, the said tablets, capsules, pieces and powder were heat sealed and put in an envelope and pasted with gum and sealed with brass seal of "Customs Goa-4" and thereafter the search of the black colour shoulder bag was taken where a polythene bag containing cigar, flats and a big flat slab of blackish colour substances were found, individually wrapped in fine material and the contents of the same were emptied in a new polythene bag and thereafter PW-5/Shri. Cruz took small piece of each of the substances and tested with the help of Field Drug Testing Kit and the same were positive for hashish and the large polythene bag was weighed and found to be 1.35 kgs., and it was heat sealed and then was put in a brown corrugated box and the same was sealed with the said brass seal. 7. 7. The Complainant stated that the shoulder bag was also sealed separately and the said black colour motor-cycle was also searched but nothing was found. 8. The Complainant further stated that on the same day thereafter he issued a notice under Section 67 of the Act for recording his statement and on the same day he recorded his statement as per his say whereupon the accused disclosed that he was residing in House No.663 belonging to Uttam Gadekar, situated at Praiawado at Anjuna and that he hired the motorcycle from one Raju on monthly charges of Rs.2,000/- from October, 2002 and that the accused also disclosed that there were additional drugs with him in his said residential house which he could show to them and the accused also told them that he was regularly dealing with drugs and he was supposed to deliver them to a customer at Vagator and that prior to two or three days he had met with an accident and suffered injuries on his shoulder and ribs. 9. The Complainant stated that he obtained a search warrant on the same day and took a search of the house of the accused in the presence of the same panch witnesses and when he asked the accused for the keys of the house the accused took the keys from the roof of the house and opened the door and led them inside and showed them a transparent polythene bag which was opened and was found containing one bluish colour carry bag in which there were some leafy substances and there was another transparent heat sealed polythene bag containing some powder as well as some lumps and yet another velcro polythene bag with red stripes, containing some whitish powder and when the accused was asked about the identity of the contents of the said bags the accused stated that the leafy substances was cannabis while the other contents were MDMA commonly known as ecstasy and thereafter PW-5/Shri. Cruz tested the leafy substance and found positive for cannabis and weighing the same it was found to be 62 gms., the contents of the polythene bag when tested were found positive for amphetamine and the same weighed 49 gms. and the contents of velcro polythene bag was also found positive for amphetamine and weighed 23 gms. and the contents of velcro polythene bag was also found positive for amphetamine and weighed 23 gms. and thereafter all the said substances were emptied in transparent polythene bags, heat sealed, put in envelopes and sealed with the said Customs seal and thereafter fresh notice was issued to the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded in which he stated that he had kept the key of the said room under the roof as usual and that he had used it to open the lock of the room. The Complainant also stated that the accused stated that the first substance was commonly known as grass and the other was known as ecstasy and that he was known to his customers as 'Heaven' and to Kashmiris as 'Mantoo' and thereafter the accused was placed under arrest at 21.00 hrs. on the same night and was produced before the J.M.F.E. on 9-12-2002 and remanded in judicial custody till 10- 12-2002. In cross-examination the Complainant denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated that he had given an offer to the accused to be searched in terms of Section 50 of the Act. 10. The evidence of the Complainant PW-6 is corroborated by PW-5/Shri. Cruz who was another Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise and who seized the drugs from the accused. PW-3/Jeronimo Coutinho has also corroborated the version given by the Complainant. Admittedly, PW-3/Coutinho was a first time panch witness as well as an independent witness called by the Complainant to witness the seizure of the said drugs from the accused. However, in the course of cross-examination, PW-3/Coutinho stated that the accused was searched on his person by the Customs Officer near the petrol pump which lasted for 5-10 minutes. As per the Complainant, the search was made at the Customs Office at Chapora which is at a distance of about 2 kms. from the petrol pump where the accused was intercepted. As per the Complainant, the search was made at the Customs Office at Chapora which is at a distance of about 2 kms. from the petrol pump where the accused was intercepted. Taking a cue from the said isolated statement in the cross-examination of PW-3/Coutinho, the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused contends that the personal search of the accused was made near the petrol pump but at that stage the accused was not informed of his right in terms of Section 50 of the Act that he had an option to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and since the accused was deprived of his right the trial is vitiated and the accused deserves to be acquitted. The learned Counsel further contends that the accused was searched near the petrol pump and it is there that the accused was required to be told that he had an option to be searched before another Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and any offer thereafter made at the Customs House would not be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 11. As per the Complainant, the cannabis/hashish of 1.35 kgs. was found in the shoulder bag carried by the accused and as far as this aspect of the case is concerned it has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, except for once, and subsequently reiterated by three learned Judges in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar (2005 AIR SCW 2154 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3475 (S.c.)]) that provisions of Section 50 of the Act do not apply to a search of baggage, article or container carried by person searched since the word "person" only means human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person and the most appropriate meaning to be given to that word is given of the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothings. The Complainant, PW-5/Shri. Cruz as well as PW-3/Coutinho are consistent in their statements that 30 tablets and 6 capsules weighing about 6.67 gms. The Complainant, PW-5/Shri. Cruz as well as PW-3/Coutinho are consistent in their statements that 30 tablets and 6 capsules weighing about 6.67 gms. which were found in the left side trouser pocket were found at the Customs Office where the accused was searched and it follows therefrom that the actual personal search of the accused was taken at the said Custom Office and not near the petrol pump where the accused was intercepted. PW3/Coutinho also stated in his cross-examination that the contents of the bag carried by the accused were not removed at the spot nor the polythene bag inside the shoulder bag was opened and since the polythene bag was transparent, they could see the contents. PW3/Coutinho also stated that no panchanama was written at the spot. It follows therefrom that when PW-3/Coutinho made a statement in the cross-examination that the 'accused was searched on his person near the petrol pump he must have been referring only to the fact that PW-5/Shri. Cruz had asked the accused to open the bag and had looked inside and seen the blackish substance i.e. cigar, flats etc. Mere opening of the zip of the bag carried on his person by the accused to see what was inside by no stretch of imagination could amount to the search of the person of the accused. There is no doubt that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are mandatory and violation thereof would be fatal to the prosecution. It is obligatory on the part of the Officer carrying out the search to inform the person to be searched, of his right to be searched before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer even when the Officer about to carry out the search is a Gazetted Officer. The object behind this provision is to ensure that there is a safeguard against planting of incriminating articles. As far as the submission of option had to be given at the place where the accused was intercepted, we find no merit in the same and since the accused was actually searched at the Customs Office and prior to that search was informed of his right to be searched before another Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, we therefore find that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were complied with. The Apex Court in the case of Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. The Apex Court in the case of Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M.P, (2004)2 SCC 56 ) after taking into consideration the decision of that Court in the case of Joseph Fernandez Vs. State of Goa (2000)1 SCC 707 ) has stated there is no specific from prescribed or intended for conveying the information required to be given under Section 50 of the Act and what is necessary is that the suspect should be made aware of the existence of his right to be searched in the presence of one of the Officers named in the section itself and since the specific mode or manner is prescribed or intended, the Court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation and whether the requirements of Section 50 have been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and or straitjacket formula. Section 50 only provides for additional safeguards which are not specifically provided by the statute and the stress is on the adoption of a reasonable, fair and just procedure and no specific words are necessary to be used to convey the existence of the right. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3475 (S.C.)] (supra) the Apex Court has reiterated the view that under Section 50 of the Act a very strict view is required to be taken and it was held that failure to inform the person concerned of his right as emanating from subsection (1) of Section 50, may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in-law. In our view, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act were complied with in this case. The fact remains that in this case the accused was actually searched at the Customs Office at a distance of 2 kms. from the place he was intercepted and it is there that the accused was told of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer other than the Complainant or a Magistrate which offer the accused declined and on this aspect the Complainant, as well as PW-5/Shri. Cruz and PW-3/Coutinho are consistent and therefore in our view the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were duly complied. On behalf of the accused, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Dilip and another Vs. State of M.P. ( AIR 2007 SC 369 : 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 823 (S.c.). However, we must hasten to add that this case stood on its own facts. It was a case where before the seizure of the contraband from the scooter personal search of the accused was carried out and at that time Section 50 of the Act, although required in law, was not complied with and the Apex Court observed that although the provisions of Section 50 might not have been required to be complied with so far as the search of his scooter is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the person of the accused was also searched, it was obligatory on the part of the I.O. to comply with the said provisions. 12. Admittedly, the articles seized from the accused, namely 1.35 kgs. of hashish (Exh.C), 30 tablets and 6 capsules of amphetamine (Exh.B), 62 gms. of ganja/ cannabis (Exh.1A), 49 gms. of whitish lumps suspected to be amphetamine (Exh.1B) and 23 gms. of whitish powder also suspected to be amphetamine (Exh.1C), after seizure were sent to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration on 9-12-2002 without sending the same to the Customs warehouse. There is absolutely no cross-examination in the evidence of the Complainant or for that matter any of the other witnesses so as to find out as to what time the same were delivered at the said Directorate. Exh.C and Exh.1A were analyzed by Shri. Kaissare, the Senior Scientific Officer/ PW-1 who certified the same to be hashish and ganja, respectively. The Assistant Director of the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration by his letter dated 11-12-2002 informed the Complainant that they did not have sufficient facilities to carry out the analysis of amphetamine and requested them to take back the said articles so that they could be sent to the CFSL at Hyderabad for the purpose of analysis and by letter dated 21-1-2003 they were returned to the Complainant and thereafter they were sent to the CFSL on 10-2-2003, as stated by PW-2/Shri. Rasul, the Junior Scientific Officer of CFSL at Hyderabad and as seen from the forwarding letter dated 10-2-2003. 13. When PW-2/Rasul Weighed the said substances he found that the contents of Exh.1B was 48.3 gms. 13. When PW-2/Rasul Weighed the said substances he found that the contents of Exh.1B was 48.3 gms. as against 49 gms. and likewise of Exh.1C to be 23.9 gms. as against 23 gms., as earlier weighed. As far as analysis is concerned, PW-2/Rasul found that the contents of Exh. B was N-Methy1-3, 4Methylene dioxy amphetamine, the contents of Exh. 1B was heroin and not amphetamine and the contents of Exh.1C were found negative for amphetamine as amphetamine could not be detected in the same. 14. Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused contends that the initial delay to send the seized articles to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration at Panaji, and subsequent delay to forward some of the seized articles to Central Forensic Science Laboratory coupled with not sending Exh.B, 1B and 1C in the same envelope, as was returned to the Complainant by the Directorate of Foods and Drugs Administration and the changes in weight as well as nature of substances found being different from those tested by Shri. Cruz/PW5 leaves enough room to doubt that they have been tampered with, namely Exh.B, 1B and 1C. The learned Counsel contends that the seized articles could be easily tampered with as the seal had remained with the Complainant and the Complainant ought not to have kept in his custody the seized article as well as the seal for long and in this context, the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court and particularly on the case of Gopal Bahadur Vs. State of Goa (2005 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 449) wherein it was observed as follows: "The Courts have always frowned upon with 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 the case of the seal". 15. 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 the case of the seal". 15. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, there is absolutely no foundation laid in cross-examination even to remotely suggest that it is the Complainant who was having the custody of the seized articles as well as the seal used in sealing the articles initially before the Complainant sent the said articles to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration at Panaji or thereafter. The Complainant is a Gazetted Officer and might have been less than prompt in forwarding the seized articles to the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration but that in itself is not sufficient to jump to the conclusion that there was tampering. The accused was arrested at 21.00 hrs. on 8-12-2002 and the seized articles were sent to ED.A. on 9-12-2002. The drugs were seized by PW-5/Shri. Cruz and it is safe to presume that it is he who continued to have the possession of the seal and not the Complainant. The Complainant is a Gazetted Officer and the law in general and the act in particular enjoins that the Courts give greater credibility to such Gazetted Officers. As far as not sending Exh.B, 1B and 1C in the same sealed envelope it could be inferred, again in the absence of any cross-examination on that aspect, that the said envelope was addressed to him, and, therefore he had necessarily to open the sealed envelope and forward the aforesaid exhibits separately by a separate memorandum as was done by him to the CFSL. A copy of the said memorandum was produced at Exh.50. As far as the difference in weight is concerned, it may be noted that the Complainant's raiding party has used an ordinary balance to weigh the same and it is common knowledge that the experts use more accurate and sophisticated weighing machines. Moreover, the difference in weight is minimal and therefore could be ignored. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 Crl.LJ. 3868 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2412 (S.C.)]) has held that when the difference in weight is minimal the same could be ignored. Moreover, the difference in weight is minimal and therefore could be ignored. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 Crl.LJ. 3868 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2412 (S.C.)]) has held that when the difference in weight is minimal the same could be ignored. We have perused the decision in the case of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005(9) see 773), relied upon by learned Counsel on behalf of the accused and on facts, in our view the same is inapplicable to the facts of this case. As far as the change of substances is concerned, it may be stated that Exh.B, 1B and 1C were sent for analysis as purported to be amphetamine and the contents of Exh.B have been found to be ecstasy which is a street name of MDMA and which is a member of the family of amphetamines. The contents of Exh.1B have been certified to be heroin and the contents of Exh.1 C were detected negative for amphetamine and this latter finding would militate against the suspicion of tampering as alleged on behalf of the accused. No Officer would replace drugs with powder. The tests done with the test kit are only meant for the law enforcement officers to satisfy themselves and to presumptively identify the suspected substances by rapid, simple and colorimetric tests with the help of certain chemical reagents provided in the kit and they are not meant to be conclusive evidence that the suspected substances are indeed drugs or psychotropic substances and such confirmation can come only from analysis from experts from authorized laboratories in the field. Such tests are not meant for the Courts. The said rapid, simple and calorimetric tests done with the kit provided would also depend on the manner the reagents are used and can never be taken as conclusive evidence which can come only by way of analysis carried out by experts. Only because the contents of Exh.1 Band Exh.1 C were detected otherwise from what they were suspected to be by the Complainant's Officers is no reason to doubt that there has been tampering. Only because the contents of Exh.1 Band Exh.1 C were detected otherwise from what they were suspected to be by the Complainant's Officers is no reason to doubt that there has been tampering. In our view, therefore, only because initially the Complainant's Officers thought that the contents of Exh.1 B were suspected to be amphetamine which in fact has found to be heroin and the contents of Exh.1 C to be negative for amphetamine is insufficient, in the circumstances of the case, to give benefit of doubt to the accused. In fact, both the experts PW-1/Shri. Kaissare and PW-2/Rasul have confirmed that the seals were in tact on the articles sent for analysis and tallied with the seal impressions separately sent. 16. As regards the statements of the accused recorded twice under Section 67 of the Act we have no hesitation to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court and that the same were voluntarily made and were free from any force, threat or coercion. The accused had himself stated in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act that he had met with an accident and suffered injuries and it is as a matter of routine that the accused was sent for medical examination to Asilo Hospital where the accused was examined by DW1/Dr. Anil Humraskar on 9-12-2002 to whom the accused only complained of pain but gave no history as to how the said pain was caused. It is normal for patients to give the history of injuries and if given it is again normal for a Medical Officer to record the same. The accused was produced before a Judicial Magistrate on the same day to whom the accused made no complaint of any ill treatment meted out to him at the hands of the Complainant or any other Officers and must have certainly been produced again before the learned Special Judge on 10-12-2002 and thereafter but chose not to complain of any ill treatment and it is for the first time on 20-122002 in the bail application filed that the accused complained of ill treatment and retracted the statements which is clear case of afterthought. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava Vs. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1963 SC 1094 ) stated as follows: "A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been held that a Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a Court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the Court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars". 18. The Apex Court in Bharat Vs. State of U.P. ( 1971(3) SCC 950 ) has stated that a retracted confession stands on a slightly different footing and if the Court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an after-thought or advice, the retraction may not weigh with the Court if the general facts proved in the case and the tenor of the confession as made and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal warrant its user. All the same, the Courts do not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court in M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( AIR 2003 SC 4311 ) has stated that a statement recorded under Section 67, if voluntarily made, can be made the basis of conviction. 19. The confessional statements of the accused recorded by the Complainant fit well with the proved facts and in this case it is only taken as additional piece of evidence to support the facts stated by the Complainant and other witnesses. The contention that the said confessional statements recorded were not voluntarily made therefore needs to be rejected. 20. Nevertheless. 19. The confessional statements of the accused recorded by the Complainant fit well with the proved facts and in this case it is only taken as additional piece of evidence to support the facts stated by the Complainant and other witnesses. The contention that the said confessional statements recorded were not voluntarily made therefore needs to be rejected. 20. Nevertheless. we are unable to sustain the conviction of the accused for possession of hashish in commercial quantity under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act. As per the Complainant the said 1.35 kgs. of hashish consisted of cigars flats and one big flat slab. Their number was not specified. As per Shri. Kaissare/PW-1, the Senior Scientific Officer, the said 1.35 kgs. of hashish consisted of a big rectangular piece and other smaller rectangular pieces. cylindrical shaped pieces and other irregular shaped pieces of various sizes, and, he took 705 gms. of the substance comprising of 10 pieces selected at random as representative sample and analyzed them individually by taking about 1 gm. each and concluded that they were positive for hashish. Here it may be noted that the weight of the pieces was not taken individually. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence as to how many pieces there were it is not the case of the prosecution that each and every piece was tested by Shri. Kaissare/PW-1 and therefore in our view since 705 gms. of the substance was analyzed and found positive for hashish, the accused could be convicted only for having found in possession of 705 gms. of hashis and benefit of doubt has to go to him as regards the remainder portion of hashish which was not analyzed and more so because the contents of Exh.1 C, though suspected to be amphetamine, was ultimately found not to be amphetamine by PW-2/Rasul. It cannot be taken for granted that the balance quantity which was not analyzed would also contain hashish. 21. This Court in the case of Javed Bhat Vs. Union of India (2007(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 34 : 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 99) following the ratio of Mr. Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State of Goa (1993(1) Crimes 1183) held that the accused could not be convicted for having possession of a drug which was not sent for analysis. The case of Mr. Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. Union of India (2007(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 34 : 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 99) following the ratio of Mr. Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State of Goa (1993(1) Crimes 1183) held that the accused could not be convicted for having possession of a drug which was not sent for analysis. The case of Mr. Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs. State of Goa (supra) was a case where the accused was arrested with two pieces weighing 7 gms. and 5 gms. and only one piece weighing 5 gms. was sent for analysis and was found positive. Considering the said facts, the Apex Court observed that from the report of the Junior Scientific Officer it could not be presumed or inferred that the substance and the other piece weighing about 7 gms. also contained charas and further observed that it had to be borne in mind that the Act applied to certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not to all other kind of intoxicating substances and in any event in the absence of positive proof that both the pieces recovered from the accused contained charas only, it would not be safe to hold that 12 gms. of charas were recovered from the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore proceeded to hold that the prosecution had proved positively that charas weighing of 5 gms. only was recovered from the accused and the failure to send the other pieces had given rise to that inference. The Supreme Court noted that in order to obviate this difficulty, the concerned authorities would do better if they send the entire quantity seized for chemical analysis so that there may not be any dispute of this nature regarding the quantity seized and if it is not practicable in a given case to send the entire quantity then sufficient quantity by way of samples from each of the packets recovered should be sent for chemical examination under the regular panchanama as per the provisions of law. In our view the same principle could be followed in this case as well. It is not the case of Shri. Kaissare/PW-1 that he analyzed each of the cigars or flat substances weighing 1.35 kgs. which were sent to him but he analyzed only 10 pieces weighing total 705 gms. He ought to have analyzed each of the cigars, flats, etc. It is not the case of Shri. Kaissare/PW-1 that he analyzed each of the cigars or flat substances weighing 1.35 kgs. which were sent to him but he analyzed only 10 pieces weighing total 705 gms. He ought to have analyzed each of the cigars, flats, etc. and therefore in the absence of analysis of the remaining pieces the principle laid down by the Apex Court has to be extended to the facts of the case and therefore it could not be presumed for sure that the substances which were not analyzed too contained charas hashish, and the benefit of this doubt should go to the accused. 22. Consequently, we allow the appeal partly and reduce the conviction of the accused from Section 20(b)(ii)(C) to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and the sentences from 12 years to 5 years and the fine from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and in default, order the accused to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentences in relation to the other offences imposed upon the accused shall remain unaltered. Needless to say all the sentences shall run concurrently and shall be deemed to have commenced on the date the accused was arrested on 8-12-2003. Appeal partly allowed.