Judgment This appeal is directed against the appellant's conviction by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai, for offence punishable under Section 20(c) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, (for short called as, "NDPS Act".), and sentence of R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-or in default R.I. for one year, imposed upon him on conclusion of trial in Special case No.191 of 2007. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- On 23rd June, 2007, Police Sub Inspector, Chavan, of the Anti Narcotic Cell, had received information that the appellant alongwith the absconder Pawankumar, was to come near Kalanagar Junction, Bandra, for sale of ganja at about 1.00 p.m. Accordingly after making entry in the station diary and informing his superiors and on receiving directions to lay a trap, a police party comprising of PSI Chavan, as well as PSI Shinde, organized a raid by calling panchas after collecting requisite material. They went to the spot and kept a watch. They found the appellant at the spot carrying on shoulder bag and a handbag. He was accosted by the police and was informed of the purpose. After acquainting him of his rights, he was then searched and two bags containing 19 Kgs and 6.100 Kgs of ganja respectively were found. The bags were seized in presence of panchas and two samples of about 25 grams each were drawn up and sealed. Thereafter a report was made to the superiors. An offence was registered. The property was lodged with the Officer Incharge of the Store. One of the two samples was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory which reported that the sample was of ganja. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet was sent to the Special Court. The learned Special Judge, charged the appellant of offence under Sections 20 read with section 8 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant has pleaded not guilty and so he was put on trial. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses, in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. 3. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of false implication, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated earlier. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of false implication, learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated earlier. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the evidence on record. P.W.1 PSI Shinde, and P.W.4 PSI Chavan, are the officers, who had participated in the raid. Both stated that PSI Chavan, had received information about the appellant's coming to Mumbai with ganja. Even the panchnama as well as F.I.R. show that PSI Chavan, had received information. However, in the report sent after raid to the Deputy Commissioner of Police at Exh.23, reference to information received by PSI Shinde is made. P.W.1 PSI Shinde and P.W.4 PSI Chavan, stated about proceeding to the spot after suitably arming them with the equipment required for raid and performing a pre-raid panchnama in presence of P.W.2 Yogesh, who, however, refused to support the prosecution, by stating in cross examination he did not remember name of the Police Officer who read over the contents of panchnama to him and that police officer had told him to depose before the Court as per contents of panchnama and had also shown the accused to him in police station. He stated that he signed the panchnama in the police station and had not accompanied police party to the spot. He stated that everything was over before he reached and he was merely asked to sign. 5. P.W.1 PSI Shinde, stated that Senior Police Inspector Jadhav, was present with them, identified himself to the appellant and informed him that he was entitled to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and if the appellant so demanded, arrangements could be made. The appellant is supposed to have declined this offer. Appellant was then searched by the raiding officer and the shoulder bag as well as hand bag were found to contain ganja. Both PSI Shinde and PSI Chavan, state that the two samples of 25 grams each were collected from two bags of Ganja and were sealed in plastic pouches. Even Panchnama at Exh 9A, recounts that some ganja was taken from the two bags and was packed in two separate plastic pouches and the pouches were sealed. Both PSI Shinde and PSI Chavan, state that the two samples of 25 grams each were collected from two bags of Ganja and were sealed in plastic pouches. Even Panchnama at Exh 9A, recounts that some ganja was taken from the two bags and was packed in two separate plastic pouches and the pouches were sealed. P.W.3 police constable Barge claimed to have carried one of the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory which reported that it contained Ganja. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that panch witness P.W 2 turned hostile. He points out that there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 PSI Shinde and P.W.4 PSI Chavan and the report at Exh.23 about the person who received the information. Therefore, according to him if the report at Exh.23 shows that PSI Shinde had received information, whereas account of two witnesses show that it was PSI Chavan, who had received information, the very foundation of the raid i.e. receipt of information becomes suspicious and therefore, the entire evidence would be discarded. 7. Learned APP submitted and rightly in my view, that one small error in Exh. 23 the report after the raid was over, need not result in rejecting consistent word of P.W.1 PSI Shinde and P.W.4 PSI Chavan, as also recitals in the panchnama at Exh 9A and 10. The entry in station diary made by PSI Chavan at Exh.21 shows that the information in fact had been received by PSI Chavan. Therefore merely because of incorrect reference in Exh.23, this consistent evidence about receipt of information by PSI Chavan, need not be discarded. 8. As far as seizure is concerned though the panch P.W.2 Yogesh, has not supported the prosecution and though ordinarily in such serious cases corroboration by independent witness is desirable, there is no rule which requires the evidence of police officers to be corroborated or without corroboration to be discarded. The evidence of P.W.1 PSI Shinde and P.W.4 PSI Chavan, is consistent and worthy of belief. Therefore, as far as factum of seizure of ganja from two bags is concerned, it was rightly held as proved by the trial Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 PSI Shinde, P.W.4 PSI Chavan and recitals of panchnama at Exh. Therefore, as far as factum of seizure of ganja from two bags is concerned, it was rightly held as proved by the trial Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 PSI Shinde, P.W.4 PSI Chavan and recitals of panchnama at Exh. 9A would show that two samples were taken from the two bags, but only one sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and therefore, it is not clear as to what one of the two bags contained. He submits that at worst the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.24 may be taken to be in respect of contents of one of the bags and could not pertain to both the bags. 10. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the two samples were taken by mixing contents of both the bags. Therefore, one sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. She points out from the cross examination of P.W. 4 PSI Chavan that the samples were taken by mixing the contents of both bags. The witness, however, immediately thereafter admitted that in the panchnama there was no reference of mixing of contents of both bags. He admits that it was indicated in the panchnama that both the samples were taken separately and that the contents of panchnama were correct. This witness noted that the contents of panchnama indicated that two samples were taken separately. In fact this very witness in his examination in chief in para 14 had stated that thereafter two samples of 25 grams each were collect from two sets of Ganja in a plastic pouches. 11. Even P.W.1 PSI Shinde had stated that two samples of 25 grams each from two sets of ganja were collected in plastic pouches, stapled and kept in brown envelopes. Thus the case now sought to be made out, that contents of two bags were mixed and these two samples were drawn up, seems to be after thought and the officers conducting raid seem to have collected two samples of ganja separately from two bags. It is also apparent from the evidence of P.W.3 police constable Barge and the report at Exh.23 that only one of the two samples were sent to the Laboratory which reported that the sample of ganja marked as A-1 was received to them. It is also apparent from the evidence of P.W.3 police constable Barge and the report at Exh.23 that only one of the two samples were sent to the Laboratory which reported that the sample of ganja marked as A-1 was received to them. The contraband seized from the two bags were of 19 Kgs and 6 Kgs. There is no reason to conclude that the sample taken from 19 Kgs of ganja was analyzed. Commercial quantity for ganja under under item 55 in the schedule to N.D.P. S. Act, is 20Kgs. Thus, the quantity seized from the appellant was in any case less than 20 Kgs and it could as well have been just 6.1 kgs. Since ordinarily if a piece of evidence is not produced, namely the report about analysis of the second sample, presumption would be that it was not produced because it was not favourable to the prosecution. Since the appellant was not found to be in possession of commercial quantity of ganja, the appellant's conviction for offence punishable under Section 20(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, could have been altered to that for offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Considering the dispute about the quantity of ganja which may have been seized, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/-or in default R.I. for a period of six months. Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.