TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further imprisonment for a period of two years. The High Court in appeal upheld the conviction but modified the sentence in as much as it upheld the substantive sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment as also the fine of Rs. one lakh, but reduced the sentence in default from two years to one years, The judgments of the courts below are challenged before us in this appeal by special leave. 2. The facts of the case are that on 14th December, 1994 one P.C. Kulbi was apprehended by the police and was found to be in possession of Chares. He was interrogated. In the course of interrogation, he disclosed the involvement of the appellant, who as stated by P.C. Kulbi, had Charas hidden in his shoes. He volunteered to identify the appellant. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he wished to search him for the said contraband He also informed him that he had a right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and that he also had a right to search him and the members of the raiding party as well as panchas. The appellant, however, declined both the offers and thereafter he was searched by him. He was asked to remove his shoes, and as noticed earlier, from both the shoes a substance was recovered which appeared to be narcotic drug. The substance recovered was weighed What was recovered from the right shoe was found to weigh 100 gms. whereas substance recovered from the left shoe weighed 115 gms. They were packed and sealed in two envelopes marked 'A and B', It is not necessary to refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the seal which was put on the two envelopes soon after alleged recovery of Charas was different from the seal found on the sealed envelopes by the Junior Scientific Officer (PW-1) who conducted the chemical analysis of the substance forwarded to him in the two envelopes. It was, therefore, not certain whether what was sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis was the same substance which was seized and sealed by PW-4 on 14.12.1994. Secondly, he submitted that the evidence on record disclosed that the quantity of Charas found in the two envelopes by the Junior Scientific Officer (PW-1) was quite different from the quantity that was sealed in those two envelopes. As against 100 gms. said to have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvelopes and those two envelopes were sealed According to him the seal bore the inscription "Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji, Goa". This seal was usually kept in the custody of the police inspector A.N.C. Panaji, but the same was in the custody of PSI Thorat on that day as it was required in connection with the sealing of Charas recovered earlier in the day from P.C. Kulbi. PW4 claimed to have taken the seal from PSI Thorat and used it for Dealing the two envelopes in which recovered substance was packed 9. So far as PW-2 is concerned, he deposed that the recovery was made in his presence and the substance recovered was also packed and sealed in his presence. According to him the seal was of A.N.C. police station, but no added that he did not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant, namely, that the weight of the substance sealed in two envelopes was found to be different from the weight of the substance received by the laboratory as deposed to by PW-1. It is not disputed that from the shoe on the right foot 100 gms. of Charas was recovered, which was sealed in envelope 'A'. According to PW-1, the Junior Scientific Officer when that envelope was opened and the substance weighed it was found to be 98.16 gms. Similarly, from the shoe on the left foot 115 gms. of Charas was recovered which was packed and sealed in envelope B. But only 82.54 gms. of the substance was found in envelope B when the same was opened by PW-1. A similar submission was urged before the High Court and the High Court also found t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court was not justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant on the basis of what was recovered only from envelope 'A' ignoring the quantity of Charas found in envelope 'B'. This is because there was only one search and seizure, and whatever was recovered from the appellant was packed in two envelopes. The credibility of the recovery proceeding is considerably eroded if it is found that the quantity actually found by PW-1 was less than the quantity sealed and sent to him. As he rightly emphasized, the question was not how much was seized, but whether there was an actual seizure, and whether what was seized was really sent for chemical analysis to PW-1. The prosecution has not been able to explain this discrepancy....