JUDGMENT :- The appellant herein is an accused who has taken exception to his conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, vide Judgment and Order dated 12-8-2005 of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa, Goa. 2. The case of the prosecution was that P.W.4/PSI Nigalye of Panaji Police Station had received reliable information on 22-1-2003 at 00.10 hours that a Manali, of stated description, was to come near Prakash Lodge at Panaji to deliver a consignment of charas to his customer between 02.30 and 03.00 hours which information was reduced into writing and copy of which was sent to his Superior Officer, namely, P.W.7/Dy.S.P. Shri. Tari and thereafter a raid was conducted near the said Prakash Lodge, in the presence of panch as, Including the said P.W.7/Dy.S.P. Shri. Tari and when the person of the said stated description reached the place and after complying the provisions of Section 50 of the Act a search was conducted and the accused was found carrying 1.57 kgs. of charas and cash of Rs.7,550/- which were duly packed and sealed under panchanama and the seized property was deposited in safe custody after complying with the necessary formalities. 3. To support the case, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses including the raiding Officer, namely P.W.4/PSI Nigalye, his superior Officer P.W.7/Dy.S.P. Shri. Tari, P.W.5/Constable Chopdekar and the panch witness P.W.3/Surlekar. These witnesses were examined to prove that the accused was in fact found with the contraband articles. P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut were examined regarding the seal being brought and given to P.W.4/PSI Nigalye. P.W.2/Constable Naik received the sealed articles in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, cm, CB, Panaji and thereafter forwarded the same for analysis to the Director, Foods and Drugs Administration where it was analyzed by P.W.l/Mahesh Kaissare, who upon analysis found that the seized article contained charas. He produced his report as Exh.10. 4. The case of the accused was that a false case was filed against him. The accused also examined D.W.l/PI Raut Dessai from ANC Police Station, Presumably to prove that P.W.3/ Surlekar was a professional panch witness. 5. He produced his report as Exh.10. 4. The case of the accused was that a false case was filed against him. The accused also examined D.W.l/PI Raut Dessai from ANC Police Station, Presumably to prove that P.W.3/ Surlekar was a professional panch witness. 5. The learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, concluded that even if the evidence of P. W.3/Surlekar could not be looked into, it was still possible to render a conviction against the accused since the evidence P.W.4/ PSI Nigalye was corroborated in material particulars by other witnesses examined by the prosecution. As far as the evidence of P.W.4/ PSI Nigalye, P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut was concerned as regards the fetching of the seal, the learned Special Judge observed that their evidence on that aspect did not inspire confidence but all the same the learned Special Judge held that it was safely proved that the seal of the Police Station was used to pack and seal the seized article and the seals were found intact at the time of deposit for safe custody. In other words, the learned Special Judge accepted the position that the evidence of P.W.4/PSI Nigalye had thrown no light on the manner in which the seal was procured but refused to give any benefit of doubt to the accused as to the procurement of the said seal and its subsequent use at the time of the raid. The learned Special Judge ultimately concluded that the evidence produced by the prosecution had established that the accused was detained on the road near Hotel Prakash and was found in possession of the seized article and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused, as aforesaid. 6. In my view both P.W.4/PSI Nigalye and P.W.3/Surlekar are witnesses who are unreliable and therefore no conviction could be recorded against the accused in a serious offence like in the case at hand. 7. The first aspect which needs consideration is whether the evidence ofP.W.3/ Surlekar could have been relied upon. The learned Special Judge has not placed reliance on his evidence and in my view, rightly. 7. The first aspect which needs consideration is whether the evidence ofP.W.3/ Surlekar could have been relied upon. The learned Special Judge has not placed reliance on his evidence and in my view, rightly. As stated by P.W.5/Constable Chopdekar, he was called by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye to the Police Station from the barracks and told about specific and reliable information received and was further told to secure two persons as panch witnesses and he went to Samrat Theatre and met one person by name Ajay and requested him to act as a panch witness and thereafter he went to the house of P.W.3/Surlekar near Mahalaxmi Temple and contacted him and requested him to act as a panch witness to which he agreed. As per him, he had told the said Ajay to come to the Police Station and wait for him there· and he returned with P.W.3/Surlekar to the Police Station. According to P.W.5/Chopdekar, P.W.3/ Surlekar was known to him for about two years prior to the raid and yet he stated that he was not aware whether he had acted as a panch witness in any drugs cases. 8. As regards P.W.3/Surlekar having acted as a professional panch witness in drugs cases, in cross-examination he stated that he had acted as a panch witness in two cases in Panaji Town Police Station prior to this case which were not cases relating to drugs and he also acted as a panch witness in two cases after this case. Again, he stated that he did not recall in how many cases he had acted as a panch witness pertaining to the crimes of Panaji Town Police Station. A suggestion that he had acted as a panch witness in more than 10 cases pertaining to Panaji Town Police Station was denied by him. Admittedly, Panaji Town Police Station and ANC Police Station are within the premises of the same building. In further cross-examination, he stated that he acted as a panch witness in 6 to 7 cases of ANC Police Station but he did not recall the sequence whether those cases were before or after this case. Again, in further cross-examination, he stated that he had acted as a panch witness in two cases of ANC Police Station, after this case. He categorically denied the suggestion that he had acted as panch in 12 cases of ANC Police Station prior to this case. Again, in further cross-examination, he stated that he had acted as a panch witness in two cases of ANC Police Station, after this case. He categorically denied the suggestion that he had acted as panch in 12 cases of ANC Police Station prior to this case. This was on 23-2-2004. P.W.3/Surlekar was further cross-examination 12-4-2004 and he admitted that he had acted as a panch witness in 14 cases of ANC Police Station including Crime No.4/2002 against the accused by name B. Chandramohan. Apart from the said admission of P.W.3/Surlekar that he acted as panch witness in 14 cases, D.W.l/PI Raut Dessai has also confirmed that P.W.3/Surlekar stood as a panch witness in 17 cases of ANC Police Station. P.W.3/Surlekar also admitted that one of the cases in which he stood as a panch witness was a case pertaining to Crime No.4/2002 against B. Chandramohan. This case was dealt by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.53/2004 by Judgment dated 24-3-2006. The accused B. Chandramohan was arrested on 31-2-2002 and this Court had observed that Surlekar (P.W.3 in both the cases) had stood as a panch witness two days prior to this raid i.e. on 22-9-2002 and thereafter, on 15 occasions which was admitted by P. W .SID' Souza who was present during most of the raids where P.W.3/Surlekar was a panch witness. This Court had also observed that it was not understood as to what sort of Superior Officer P.W.PSI Souza was, so as not to have advised P.W.4/P.I. Paes (in that case) that he should desist from engaging a panch witness in so many cases and this is inspite of the Government having given instructions to call on Government servants to act as panchas. That the Government had given instructions to call Government servants as panch witnesses came to light in Aspaq Ahmed Vs. State of Goa (2006(2) AIR Bom C.R. 111). The cross-examination ofP.W.3/Surlekar and the evidence of D.W.I show that he had stood as a panch witness in two cases in Panaji Town Police Station and at least about 7 cases of ANC Police Station of the year 2002, prior to this case. On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed on the case of Joseph Fernandez Vs. The cross-examination ofP.W.3/Surlekar and the evidence of D.W.I show that he had stood as a panch witness in two cases in Panaji Town Police Station and at least about 7 cases of ANC Police Station of the year 2002, prior to this case. On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed on the case of Joseph Fernandez Vs. State of Goa (2002 Drugs Cases 22) to contend that only because P.W.3/Surlekar had obliged the Police in other cases, his evidence could not be discarded not being of independent witness. Indeed, the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision has observed that one of the panch witnesses was not an independent witness. It was quite probable that there was another panch witness examined in that case. It is not mentioned in the decision cited as to in how many cases the witnesses who were examined had obliged the Police in other cases. Therefore the observations of the Apex Court in aforesaid case are inapplicable to this case. In two decisions of this Court, namely Arnarjit Singh Cheerna Vs. State ( 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 108 ) and Deepak Ghanshyarn Naik Vs. The State of Maharashtra ( 1989(1) Bom.C.R. 574 ) which are reflected in the impugned Judgment, two learned Division Benches of this Court had held that the fact that a witness had acted as a panch once or twice was not sufficient to label him as a professional panch. In the case at hand, the defence has proved that P.W.3/Surlekar had stood as a panch witness in about 9 cases prior to this case concerning two Police Stations and therefore one could safely conclude that P.W.3/ Surlekar was a person who was at the beck and call of the Police and was their stock witness and therefore the evidence of such a witness could not be relied upon to corroborate the evidence of the Police witnesses. P.W.4/PSI Nigalye was asked in his cross-examination whether he had made any inquiries to find out whether P.W.3/Surlekar had acted as a panch witness in any Police Station and he replied stating that he had not made any such inquiries. If P.W.3/Surlekar had acted as a panch witness in nine such cases in relation to the said Police Stations. P.W.4/PSI Nigalye could not have been so naive as not to know about the same. If P.W.3/Surlekar had acted as a panch witness in nine such cases in relation to the said Police Stations. P.W.4/PSI Nigalye could not have been so naive as not to know about the same. The evidence of P.W.3/Surlekar shows that he was a stock panch witness and no reliance could be placed on his evidence. There are also other facts stated by him which make his very presence doubtful. 9. P.W.3/Surlekar categorically stated that he did not know the constable who came to call him for the raid though he knew that Constable Chopdekar was a member of the raiding party. This creates a serious doubt whether P.W.5/Chopdekar had at all called him for the raid, as otherwise stated by P.W.51 Chopdekar. According to him, he had visited the house of P.W.3/Surlekar prior to the raid during Diwali time to organize a meeting in connection with Narkasur parade and at the time he had handed over a letter to him. As per him, he had not asked P.W.3/Surlekar if he had acted as a panch witness earlier, when he requested him to act as a panch witness in this case. However, P.W.3/Surlekar merely stated that one constable had come to call him at about 01.00 hours and told him to accompany him to Panaji Police Station, thereby giving an impression that he was not at all acquainted with the said constable Chopdekar. In other words, P.W.31 Surlekar stated that the raiding party comprised of SDPO Shri. Thali, P.W.4/PSI Nigalye, Constable P.W.5/Chopdekar and Subraya all from Town Police Station and that the said P.W.5/Chopdekar had carried a kit box containing the packing and sealing material but at no time identified P.W.5/Chopdekar as the person who came to call him to the Police Station. This creates doubt whether P.W.31 Surlekar was at all called for the raid by P.W.51 Chopdekar. There is yet another major discrepancy in the evidence of P. W.3/Surlekar. This creates doubt whether P.W.31 Surlekar was at all called for the raid by P.W.51 Chopdekar. There is yet another major discrepancy in the evidence of P. W.3/Surlekar. According to him, after the seizure, they had entered Prakash Lodge which is near Hotel Park Plaza, after the accused had disclosed that he was residing in Prakash Lodge and they went to the first floor of the said Prakash Lodge directly to the room of the accused, without making inquiries, and the room pointed out by the accused as being occupied by him was found locked and which was opened by the accused with the key in his possession but there was nobody in the said room though it was having two beds. This is an aspect on which both P.W.4/ PSI Nigalye as well as P.W.7/Shri. Tari are silent and P.W.5/Chopdekar has given another version. According to P.W.5/Chopdekar, they had gone to Prakash Lodge on the first floor along with the accused and met one D'Souza to whom they had asked whether the accused was residing in the said lodge and the said D'Souza had told them that though the accused was residing in the lodge, he had already left the lodge. The story given by P.W.3/Surlekar that the accused had opened the lock of the room with the key in his possession is probably out of his imagination as he was not at all present at the time of the raid. 10. The controversy does not end there. The defence was able to demonstrate through the cross-examination of P.W.3/ Surlekar himself, independently of the evidence of D.W.l/P1 Raut Dessai that P.W.3/Surlekar was their regular panch witness and yet the prosecution chose not to examine the other panch witness, namely Ajay G. Naik. As far .as the presence of Ajay G. Naik, who has not been examined by the prosecution, the same also is not free from doubt. P.W.5/Constable Chopdekar, in his cross-examination, stated that he had contacted the said Ajay G. Naik near Samrat Theatre whom he did not know prior to that occasion and that there were some two to four other persons near Samrat Theatre including the Mobile Stall Operators. It is certainly not his case, that he had made any efforts to call. upon the said other persons to act as panch witness along with the said Ajay G. Naik before proceeding to the house ofP.W.3/Surlekar. It is certainly not his case, that he had made any efforts to call. upon the said other persons to act as panch witness along with the said Ajay G. Naik before proceeding to the house ofP.W.3/Surlekar. As per P.W.5/Chopdekar, Ajay G. Naik was present near Samrat Theatre dispensing fresh lime, and, at the same time he stated, that he was on his motorcycle drinking fresh lime soda. Needless to observe the said two statements are inconsistent. A person who dispenses fresh lime does not sit on a motorcycle and drink fresh lime soda. It is doubtful whether Ajay G. Naik was at all present for the said panchanama and presumably for that reason the prosecution did not examine him inspite of the fact that the defence was able to obtain sufficient material to prove that P.W.3/Surlekar was a professional panch witness. This is a fit case for drawing adverse inference against the prosecution for non examination of Ajay G. Naik. 11. That takes us to the controversy regarding the seal. It is contended on behalf of the accused, that no seal was available with P.WA/PSI Nigalye, and, therefore the entire story that the seizure and sealing was made at the scene could not be accepted. This, according to the defence, is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution which should entitle the accused for a benefit of doubt. It is also submitted on behalf of the accused that the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have destroyed the version given by P.WA/PSI Nigalye and in fact the prosecution ought to have re-examined P.WA/PSI Nigalye to corroborate the facts stated by them. It is also submitted that the prosecution has gone to the extent of fabricating a document only to support the case that the seal was taken by P.WA/PSI Nigalye after signing the register, in token thereof, which was not the case of P.WA/PSI Nigalye himself. 12. It is also submitted that the prosecution has gone to the extent of fabricating a document only to support the case that the seal was taken by P.WA/PSI Nigalye after signing the register, in token thereof, which was not the case of P.WA/PSI Nigalye himself. 12. As per the version given by P.WA/ PSI Nigalye they had left the Police Station at 01.50 hours on foot to go to Prakash Lodge near Azad Maidan, Panaji and he carried the seal of Panaji Police Station bearing inscription "Panaji Police Station, Panaji-3" thereby giving an impression that the said seal was with him and he had carried it along with him without the same being taken either from the Police Inspector in charge of the Police Station or from anyone else. He was not cross-examined by the defence on the said seal, but, subsequently P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut were brought in, though not cited on the charge-sheet, as witnesses, to show how P.W.4/PSI Nigalye came to have the said seal to be taken for the raid. P.W.6/PI Gaonkar as an Officer in charge of the Police Station ought to have known as to how many seals his Police Station had and according to him, Panaji Town Police Station, had only one seal, at the relevant time, till the time he deposed on 14-2-2005. However, P.W.7/Dy.S.P. Shri. Tari and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut had a different story to tell. As per P.W.7 IShii. Tali, Panaji Town Police Station, had three seals bearing numerals 1, 3 and 5 from the time the Panaji Town Police Station was notified as a Police Station, after Liberation. One wonders whether there was a need for three seals soon after Liberation for Panaji Police Station and therefore the said statement of P.W.7/Shri. Tari could not be free from doubt. Although, P.W.8/Head Constable Raut stated that the Panaji Police Station has three seals, the other two having numerals 1 and 5, the said seals were kept in a cupboard. According to him, on 22-12003 while he was in the barracks he was called by P.W.6/PI Gaonkar to his residence to collect the keys so that the cupboard at the Police Station could be opened so that P.W.4/PSI Nigalye could be given the seal of the Police Station. According to him, on 22-12003 while he was in the barracks he was called by P.W.6/PI Gaonkar to his residence to collect the keys so that the cupboard at the Police Station could be opened so that P.W.4/PSI Nigalye could be given the seal of the Police Station. In cross-examination, P.W.8/Head Constable Raut stated that there was no entry made on the station diary to show his movement out of the Police Station. If the movement ofP.W.5/Chopdekar could have been recorded, and indeed is shown to have been recorded on the station diary on Exh.39 when he was sent to bring two panch witnesses, and the movement of Constable Buckle No.4440 is seen recorded when the latter went and returned with kit box from ANC Police Station there is no reason why the movement of P.W.8/Head Constable Raut was not recorded on the station , J diary when he went to colIect the keys from P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and again returned with the said keys with a view to hand over the seal to f P.W.4/PSI Nigalye. His evidence therefore becomes doubtful. P.W.8/Head Constable Raut also stated that he had taken a note of the receipt of the seal by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye on the register, the extract of which was produced as Exh.64. A perusal of the said register shows that it was signed by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye and by P.W.8/ Head Constable Raut whose signatures he identified at points A and B on the said register. However, in cross-examination, P.W.8/Head Constable Raut conceded that the said entry on the seal movement register-Exh.64 was made at the instructions of P.W.6/PI Gaonkar. It does not require a very discerning eye to conclude that the said seal movement register-Exh.64 was tailor made and fabricated to give corroborative support to the version given by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye. Indeed, P.W.8/Head Constable Raut admitted in his cross-examination that this was the only case in which P.W.6/PI Gaonkar had told him to make an entry of the movement of the seal in the seal movement register. P.W.8/ Head Constable Raut also conceded that he had not made any record of the movement of the seal prior to this case and after this case on the said register and that the said register was opened for the first time on 22-1-2003 i.e. the date of the alleged raid in this case. P.W.8/ Head Constable Raut also conceded that he had not made any record of the movement of the seal prior to this case and after this case on the said register and that the said register was opened for the first time on 22-1-2003 i.e. the date of the alleged raid in this case. P.W.8/Head Constable Raut further admitted that the seal had moved out of his custody from 1-1-2003 to 211-2003 but that there was no entry made by him of the said movements on the said seal movement register. Likewise P.W.8/Head Constable Raut also admitted that the seal had moved out from his custody after 21-1-2003 and yet there was no entry made on the said register. All these facts stated by him show that the seal movement register-Exh.46 was fabricated to give credence l to the version of P.W.4/Nigalye, that he had taken the seal at the time when he went out for raid which otherwise remains in ti1e custody of P.W.6/PI Gaonkar. The evidence of P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut as regards the seal/s having been in exclusive custody of P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and then at the instance of the latter given to P.W.8/Head Constable Raut has got to be considered as an improvement which is not supported by P.W.4/ PSI Nigalye himself. One does not know the reason why the prosecution chose not to re- examine P.W.4/PSI Nigalye and subject him to cross-examination on those aspects deposed to by P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut as regards the seal. As per P.W.8/Head Constable Raut the seal movement register-Exh.64 was signed by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye. In other words, it is evident that P.W.4/ PSI Nigalye has been a party to fabrication of a document to support a version which he himself did not depose. No reliance could be placed on the evidence of such a witness who has indulged and has been a party to fabrication of document to support a false version. The evidence of P.W.4/PSI Nigalye therefore, could not have been relied upon. The said story as regards the seal being brought from the custody of P.W.6/ PI Gaonkai appears to have been invented subsequenLy by P.W.6/PI Gaonkar with the assistance ofP.W.8/Head Constable Raut as well as by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye. The evidence of P.W.4/PSI Nigalye therefore, could not have been relied upon. The said story as regards the seal being brought from the custody of P.W.6/ PI Gaonkai appears to have been invented subsequenLy by P.W.6/PI Gaonkar with the assistance ofP.W.8/Head Constable Raut as well as by P.W.4/PSI Nigalye. P.W.4/PSI Nigalye could not be oblivious in deposing the facts as stated by both P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/ Head Constable Raut as to how the seal was arranged to be taken by him for the raid; including signing the seal movement register by him. If a cloud of suspicion hovers on the availability of the seal at the time of raid, mere tallying of the seals by the Chemical Analyzer would not be any guarantee that the seized article was not tampered with. 13. If prosecution in general and P.W.4/PSI Nigalye in particular could go to the extent of fabricating a document like the seal movement register-Exh.64, to support his version, no credence could be given to the facts stated by him as regards the search and seizure of the seized article from the possession of the accused. ' 14. The prosecution story therefore that the alleged article was seized and sealed at the scene appears to be doubtful and the benefit of that doubt has certainly to go to the accused. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh J. Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2004 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 322) and followed by this Court in the case ofDhansur Ghartimagar V s. State of Goa (unreported decision dated 13- Dadu Genu More Vs.12-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.41/200S) the question was not how 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 and that what could be least said was that a serious doubt was created about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 15. As already seen, there has been a clear attempt on the part of the prosecution in manipulating and fabricating the evidence against the accused. 15. As already seen, there has been a clear attempt on the part of the prosecution in manipulating and fabricating the evidence against the accused. If P.W.4/PSI Nigalye had obtained the seal in the manner subsequently deposed to by P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/ Head Constable Raut nothing had prevented P.W.4/PSI Nigalye from deposing the same story or in any event subsequently stepping the witness box by way of re-examination and explaining the same as to under what circumstances he had obtained the seal which according to P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and P.W.8/Head Constable Raut was in custody of P.W.6/PI Gaonkar and subject himself for cross-examination. Considering the totality of facts of the case including that the prosecution chose to examine a panch witness who as a professional panch witness and otherwise chose not to examine the other panch witness without showing that he was unavailable and the case of the Police witnesses not being corroborated in material particulars particularly as regards the seal, the accused certainly deserved to be given benefit of doubt. Hence, the order. 16. The appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the learned Special Judge is hereby set aside. The accused is hereby given benefit of doubt and acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act. The accused shall be set to liberty forthwith in case he is not required in any other case. The muddemal property shall be disposed of as directed by the learned Special Judge. Hamdust of the operative part of the order be given to the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant. Appeal allowed.