JUDGMENT : Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. 1. This Appeal takes an exception to the Judgment dated 12th February, 2009 in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 106 of 2004 passed by the N.D.P.S. Special Judge, Greater Bombay, thereby acquitting Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/original Accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 29 r/w. 8(c) and Section 21(c) and Section 21(c) r/w. 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal may briefly be stated thus:-- "On 8th March, 2004, the Intelligence Officers of Narcotic Control Bureau, namely, PW-1 Jitendra Dubey and PW-2 Ashok Singh collected intelligence and developed it in early hours and placed the said Intelligence Note (Exhibit-14) before PW-18 Ajit Patil, Superintendent N.C.B.. As per the said Intelligence Note (Exhibit-14), Accused No. 1 had delivered huge quantity of Heroin at the premises under occupation of Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan, since deceased. PW-18 Superintendent Ajit Patil took the directions of his superior officer Mr. Sanches and formed the team of Officers for conducting the search. Accordingly, PW-1 Jitendra Dubey and PW-2 Ashok Singh, Intelligence Officers, called two Panchas from the vicinity and, along with them, conducted the search in the premises under the occupation of Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan, which was a room situate on the 2nd Floor, Soofi Manzil. Accused No. 2- Mohamed Hassan was informed about the purpose of the visit. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and younger brother of Accused No. 2 were present in the room. During the systematic search of the said room, blue-cum-black nylon carry bag containing five heat sealed polythene bags containing brown colour powder was recovered. The bag also contained personal belongings of the Accused and some documents. It was taken in custody. On testing the powder in the said bag, it answered for Heroin. Each polythene bag was containing 2 kgs. of Heroin. In a big size polythene bag, the contents of five polythene bags were emptied and, out of it, two samples were taken in small polythene sachets; heat-sealed and kept in two separate envelopes, duly sealed with N.C.B. Seal No. 03. The bulk quantity of Heroin powder was also separately packed and sealed in a carton." 2. During preliminary enquiry, Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan disclosed that Heroin powder was brought by Accused No. 1 and he was to purchase 5 kgs. out of it. The bulk quantity of Heroin powder was also separately packed and sealed in a carton." 2. During preliminary enquiry, Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan disclosed that Heroin powder was brought by Accused No. 1 and he was to purchase 5 kgs. out of it. Accused No. 1 disclosed that remaining 5 kgs. Heroin powder was to be delivered to one Tanzanian National Abdul Emam, i.e. Accused No. 3, at 12 hrs. outside Al-Mozain Hotel. Therefore, in order to apprehend Accused No. 3, some Officers went to Al-Mozain Hotel. 3. During the course of search of the room in possession of Accused No. 1, some documents, two passports and one Motorola Mobile Handset were recovered. All these articles were taken into custody and Panchanama to that effect was made. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 with younger brother of Accused No. 2 were brought to the N.C.B. Office with seized articles. Meanwhile, the team of Officers, who had been to intercept Accused No. 3-Abdul Emam, also returned to the N.C.B. Office with Accused No. 3. In his personal search also, some documents as well as Indian and foreign currency was recovered. Another team was deputed to search residential premises of Accused No. 3 situate at Vasai. There, in the presence of Panchas, residential premises of Accused No. 3 was searched and the N.C.B. Officers recovered certain documents, including original Leave and License Agreement On the same day itself, the statement of Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan was recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in which he gave the details as to how he was trafficking in drugs for last one year and earning commission. He also disclosed that he was doing the drug trafficking business with Accused No. 1 and gave further details of his journey from Mandsour to Ratlam and from Ratlam to Mumbai, while he was taking 10 kgs. of Heroin concealed under his personal belongings in his carry bag. He further disclosed that on 8th March, 2004, at about 9:30 am, he had been to Shalimar Hotel to contact Accused No. 3, but he was not present. He has contacted Accused No. 3 on telephone and fixed the delivery of 5 kgs. of Heroin at about 12 hrs. on the very day. During the course of recording of his statement, Accused No. 1 was confronted with Accused Nos. 2 and 3, to whom he identified. 4. He has contacted Accused No. 3 on telephone and fixed the delivery of 5 kgs. of Heroin at about 12 hrs. on the very day. During the course of recording of his statement, Accused No. 1 was confronted with Accused Nos. 2 and 3, to whom he identified. 4. On 12th March, 2004, one more statement of Accused No. 1 came to be recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in which he gave further details. The statement of Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan also came to be recorded on 9th March, 2004, 12th March, 2004 and 19th March, 2004, during which he disclosed his involvement in the drug trafficking. In the statement recorded on the same day, Accused No. 3 gave details and accepted that he was to take delivery of 5 kgs. Heroin near Hotel Al- Mozain at about 12 hrs. from Accused No. 1 on that day. In the statement dated 15th March, 2004, Accused No. 3 disclosed in which manner he was to dispose of these 5 kgs. Heroin, after receipt from Accused No. 1. 5. On 9th March, 2004, one of the sample of the Heroin was forwarded to Forensic Laboratory, Kalina for quantitative test, which confirmed that the sample tested positive for Heroin and percentage of Heroin was 24.16%. Another sample was sent to Deputy C.C., Mumbai, which also confirmed that the sample tested positive for Heroin. In view of the complicity of the Accused transpired in investigation, Charge-Sheet came to be filed by PW-1 Jitendra Dubey, Intelligence Officer, against the Accused for the offences punishable under Section 29 r/w. 8(c) and Section 21(c) r/w. 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Trial Court framed charge against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 vide Exhibit-6. Accused abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 6. During recording of evidence of Appellant Witnesses, Accused No. 2-Mohamed Hassan expired. Hence, case against him was abated and proceeded against Accused Nos. 1 and 3 only. 7. In support of its case, the Appellant examined in all 19 witnesses and on appreciation of their evidence, the Trial Court acquitted Accused Nos. 1 and 3 of all the charges levelled against them. This Judgment of the Trial Court is being challenged in this Appeal by learned Counsel for the Appellant Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, whereas, supported by learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Ayaz Khan. 8. 1 and 3 of all the charges levelled against them. This Judgment of the Trial Court is being challenged in this Appeal by learned Counsel for the Appellant Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, whereas, supported by learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Ayaz Khan. 8. This being an appeal against acquittal, at the outset itself, it would be well to remember that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, though the powers of the Appellate Court are no less than the powers exercised while hearing appeal against conviction, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with by an Appellate Court where the Judgment of the Trial Court is based on the evidence and the view taken by the Trial Court is reasonable and plausible. Appellate Court will not reverse the decision of the Trial Court merely because a different view is possible. As held by the Apex Court in the recent case of Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 154 : [2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1497 (S.C.)], High Court in an Appeal, under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against acquittal is entitled to reappraise evidence and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court, but the same is permissible only if the Judgment of the Trial Court is perverse. The word 'perverse' in terms, as understood in law, has been defined to mean 'against the weight of evidence'. While sitting in Judgment over an acquittal, the Appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question 'whether findings recorded by the Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable?'. 9. In the instant case, the Trial Court has noticed one fatal infirmity in the Appellant's case, brought on record through the evidence of the Appellant Witnesses, and it pertains to the difference in the weight of the sample. In paragraph Nos. 110 to 113 of its Judgment, the Trial Court has dealt with this aspect and the evidence pertaining to it. It is pointed out that, as per the evidence of PW-2-Mohamed Hassan, while samples were taken in small polythene sachets, 5 gms. each of the brown powder were taken from the mixture, which were weighed, sealed and further placed in two different envelopes marked as SH-I and SH-II. This fact is mentioned in Panchanama (Exhibit-23) also. It is pointed out that, as per the evidence of PW-2-Mohamed Hassan, while samples were taken in small polythene sachets, 5 gms. each of the brown powder were taken from the mixture, which were weighed, sealed and further placed in two different envelopes marked as SH-I and SH-II. This fact is mentioned in Panchanama (Exhibit-23) also. In the Test Memo (Exhibit-41) and even in the letter at Exhibit-40, the weight of the sample packed is mentioned as 5 gms. PW-2-Mohamed Hassan has further affirmed that each individual sample packet was weighed correctly on the weighing machine, which they had carried with them while going to the spot. He has personally seen the packets being weighed. Hence, according to him, there was no mistake in weighing each packet and, therefore, it has to be accepted that sample packets were of 5 gms. each. 10. However, the evidence of PW-8 Sanjay Prabhavale, Assistant Chemical Analyzer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina goes to prove that the weight of sample packet sent to him for analysis was 40% more than the sample collected and as per Dy. C.C. Report (Exhibit-54), it was about 25% more. It was hence necessary for the Appellant to explain this difference in the weight of the sample packets, as the difference in weight was necessarily indicates that the sample envelopes were tampered. It further thereby indicates that the sample packets, which were actually collected, are not proved to be sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis and not proved to be analyzed by the Chemical Analyzer. One can understand decrease in the weight due to moisture and atmospheric condition, but it is hard to believe that the weight of the samples will be automatically increased and that too not at a marginal or minimal level, but to the extent of 40%, i.e. 7.399 gms., in respect of the sample analyzed by the Chemical Analyzer and 25% more, i.e. 6.42 gms., as per Dy. C.C. Report. 11. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in several of its reported decisions, including that of Amina Abdul Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Mh.L.J. 170, it has been emphasized that weight of contraband is one of the most important features to identify the contraband. C.C. Report. 11. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in several of its reported decisions, including that of Amina Abdul Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Mh.L.J. 170, it has been emphasized that weight of contraband is one of the most important features to identify the contraband. A word of caution is hence issued to the officers concerned that weight factum should be attended to with a degree of rather precision and correctness, as any amount of laxity, looseness or error would have fatal consequences on Prosecution. 12. In the subsequent decision of Abdul Rashid Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (2) Crimes 362 , it was reiterated that discrepancy in the quantity of samples sent to Chemical Analyzer for analysis and that was received by him is a serious infirmity which is fatal to Prosecution case. 13. In the decision of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 150, in the light of failure of the Prosecution to explain the discrepancy in the weight of the contraband, it was held that as the credibility of recovery proceedings was considerably eroded due to the fact that the quantity found by the Analyst was other than the quantity sealed and sent. Hence, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tampered with and that was the only hypothesis to be drawn, on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. Apex Court has thus observed that it creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the Prosecution case. 14. In the instant case, this difference in the weight of the sample packets, which, as per the evidence of PW-2 Ashok Singh, Intelligence Officer, was 5 gms., whereas, as per the Chemical Analyzer, it was 7.399 gms. i.e. 40% more and as per the report of Dy. C.C. 25%, i.e. 6.42 gms., which difference being not explained by the Appellant creating sufficient doubt about veracity and truthfulness of the Appellant case, coupled with the admission given by PW-2 Ashok Singh that neither in complaint nor in any document, there is indication as to who was the custodian of the samples till it reached to Dy. C.C. and Forensic Science Laboratory. C.C. and Forensic Science Laboratory. In the circumstances of the case and evidence brought on record, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that this infirmity goes to the root of the matter and on this ground itself, the Appellant's case deserves to be disbelieved as a whole. 15. Though the Appellant has also relied upon the confessional statements of the Accused, which were retracted by the Accused, as held by the Apex Court in Hariharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 retracted confessional statement is a weak type of evidence and can be relied upon only when the other evidence led by the Prosecution inspired confidence. 16. In the instant case, as noted by the Trial Court in paragraph No. 158 of its Judgment, there were several other infirmities also noted in the Appellant's case, like, identity of Accused No. 3 being not established as a person by name Abdul Emam, to whom Accused No. 1 was to deliver 5 kgs. of Heroin powder in front of Hotel Al-Mozain; the evidence lacking as to where nylon bag containing 10 kgs. of Heroin powder was lying when Accused No. 1 visited Shalimar Hotel at 9:30 hrs.; and, as to why he has not delivered 5 kgs. of Heroin to Accused No. 2 before that time, etc. Hence, the view taken by the Trial Court that Appellant has failed to prove the charges levelled against the Accused, being the most reasonable and probable view, it is obvious that, no interference is warranted in the said view in this Appeal against acquittal. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed.