{"id":112505,"date":"2005-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005"},"modified":"2019-01-05T08:51:59","modified_gmt":"2019-01-05T03:21:59","slug":"gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: N Britto<\/div>\n
Bench: N Britto<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
N.A. Britto, J.<\/p>\n
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment\/order of  the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa dated 12\/16  July, 2004 by which the appellant herein – accused has been convicted  and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and  Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act, for short).\n<\/p>\n
2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that the accused  was found carrying a consignment of 1015 grams of charas at about 23.00  hrs. near petrol pump at Anjuna, Goa. The raid was conducted upon prior  information received by Pw.5\/P.I. Vincy Paes of Anti Narcotic Cell Police  Station (ANC PS). As per Pw.5\/P.I. Vincy Paes, on 14.12.01 at about 19.00  hrs. he had received specific and reliable information that a person of about  22 years of age, strong built, fair complexion would come to deliver  consignment of charas to his customer between 23.00 hrs. and 23.30 hrs.  near the petrol pump which information he reduced into writing and copy  thereof handed over to Pw.6, the then Dy. S.P. Shri D’Souza and thereafter  at about 20.00 hrs. he sent a constable to secure panch witnesses and who  returned with one Caetano Jose Vaz and Shrikant Lokre\/Pw.4, whom he  requested to act as panchas and told them about the receipt of the said  information and about a copy of the same having been handed over to  Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza and then introduced them to the raiding party and  thereafter left the Police Station at about 21.45 hrs. in a police jeep and a  private Maruti car alongwith the seal of ANC , Panaji, Goa1,  the kit box containing packing, sealing material, etc. and a typewriter and reached Anjuna at 22.30 hrs. and after parking the vehicle, they concealed  themselves near the petrol pump and at about 1.00 a.m. of 15.12.01 they  saw a person walking from Vozrant towards Anjuna petrol pump with a  polythene bag in his right hand and as his description tallied with the given  description, they surrounded him and identified themselves and asked him  for his name and particulars and the said person gave his name as Gopal  Bahadur, s\/o Singraram Bahadur, presently residing at Arpora, native of  Nepal and thereafter he told the accused about the receipt of the reliable  information and that he wanted to take a personal search of the bag he was  carrying and he told him that the accused had a right to search the raiding  party and the panchas including himself, which the accused declined.\n<\/p>\n
3. As per Pw.5, P.I. Vincy Paes, he also told the accused that he  had a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate of his  choice, which offer, the accused declined, whereupon he told the accused to  open the polythene bag which the accused was carrying in his hand and on  opening the same, they saw blackish substances suspected to be charas,  wrapped in polythene wrappers of different cylindrical shapes and he smelt  one of them and he suspected it to be charas and then he directed police  constable Gawas to weigh the same and they were found to be 1015 grams  and he tied a knot to the polythene bag and put in an envelope, packed and  sealed the same with 7 seals of ANC PS and then took a personal search of  the accused but nothing incriminating was found and when asked the  accused whether he had any document to support his possession, and since  he had none, he took the accused and the said property in custody and drew  a panchanama and a seizure report which were signed by the panchas,  himself and the accused, and copies of the same were given to the accused  under his acknowledgment.\n<\/p>\n
4. As per Pw.5\/P.I. Vincy Paes, he prepared a letter at the spot  addressed to the Director of Food and Drugs Administration on which he  affixed the specimen seal impression. He also stated that he prepared a  letter addressed to Pw.6, Dy. S.P. D’Souza handing over the seal to him and  returned at the Police Station at about 6.00 hrs. with the accused and the  seized article and registered the seized article on the muddemal register and  at about 9.30 a.m. forwarded the sealed envelope to the office of C.I.D.,  Crime Branch, Panaji, for onward despatch to the Director of Food and  Drugs Administration. As stated by him, from the time he returned to the  Police Station with the sealed contraband till the time of despatch to the  laboratory, the sealed envelope remained in the locker, under his control.  He also stated that he sent intimation – Exh.36 to Dy. S.P. D’Souza as  required under Section 57 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
5. Pw.2\/Chandrakant Chowgule stated that he was looking after  the work of PSI Shetgaonkar as he was deputed to Gujarat and that on  15.12.2001 constable Padelkar came to him alongwith a letter dated  15.12.05 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Panaji  alongwith a letter addressed to the Director of Food and Drugs Administration in duplicate bearing the specimen seal impression of the  ANC, Panaji, Goa – 1, and one sealed envelope having 7 seals, signatures of  the panchas, the I.O. and the accused which letter he inwarded and kept in  a locker under his lock and key and thereafter prepared a letter to the  Director of Food and Drugs Administration under the signature of Dy. S.P.  Kurtarkar and personally went and handed over the sealed envelope and  the letter addressed to the laboratory, in the laboratory. Pw.1\/Mahesh  Kaissare, the Junior Scientific Officer in the Directorate of Food and Drugs  Administration stated that the seized article was received on 18.12.01 in the  Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration and the seals were in tact,  individually covered with a cello tape and the same tallied with the  specimen seal impression sent separately on a letter bearing no.  PI\/ANCPS\/2914 dated 15.12.01.According to him, he opened the envelope  on 20.12.01, and as stated by him in his analytical report Exh.10, the  envelope was containing 1.15 kgs. of dark brown coloured substance  consisting of three circular pieces and 13 elongated sticks selected at  random as representative sample and analysed by taking about one gram of  the substance from each piece and on microscopic examination and other  tests, mentioned by him in his report, carried out by him he came to the  conclusion that the substance contained charas. As per him, the balance  substance alongwith the wrappings and the polythene bag were put back  into the envelope which was received and then it was wrapped in a brown  paper, tied with a string and sealed.\n<\/p>\n
6. Pw.3\/PSI Shetgaonkar has stated that on 9.1.02 he had  received a letter dated 8.1.02 from the office of Directorate of Food and  Drugs Administration with report no.32\/N\/2001 and instructions to collect  the balance quantity from his office, which he collected on 9.1.02 and  handed over to the Police Inspector vide letter dated 10.1.02.\n<\/p>\n
7. It appears that on or about 13.2.02 the prosecution moved an  application – Exh.3 before the learned Special Judge praying that the  substance be sent again for weighing the same without wrappers and  polythene bag since by then an amendment to the Act was brought about  defining the quantities as ‘small’ and ‘commercial’ and as a result of the said  application, the learned Special Judge vide her order dated 27.2.02 had  ordered that the said substance be sent back to the Directorate of Food and  Drugs Administration. Pw.1\/Kaissare has stated that on 7.3.02 the Director  of Food and Drugs Administration had received one brown large paper  envelope from the Special Judge, NDPS Court, Mapusa and that the said  substance was sent to the laboratory for the purpose of individual weighing  of the polythene bag, the wrappers and the substance separately and as  such, after weighing the same as ordered, he found that the weight of the  dark brown coloured substance was 995 grams, the weight of the polythene  wrappings was 20 grams and the weight of the polythene carry bag was 5  grams and the weight of the substance without wrappings was 970 grams.\n<\/p>\n
8. The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence led by  the prosecution found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable  doubt that the substance recovered from the accused, duly packed and  sealed and forwarded to the laboratory through the office of S.P., CID,  Crime Branch and analysed by Pw.1\/Kaissare was tested positive for charas  and thus the case of the prosecution had come full circle against the accused  on all the parameters. The learned Special Judge also observed that Pw.1\/  Kaissare had remained unshaken that the substance in the sealed condition  received in the office was sent to him in virgin condition without opening  the seals and thus the prosecution had established that the sealed parcel  initially forwarded to the Crime Branch for onward despatch was received  by him in the same sealed condition with the seals in tact and analysed by  him was tested positive for charas and thus from his evidence the element  of tampering was ruled out 13th October, 2005 <\/p>\n
9. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Ms. Collasso the learned  Counsel on behalf of the accused, submits that what was received in the  laboratory and analysed by Pw.1\/Kaissare cannot be said to be the same  which was attached from the possession of the accused and this on account  of the variance of weight of the sample as seized and as analysed. Ms.  Collasso further submits that Pw.5\/P.I. Paes has spoken falsehood on the  aspect of preparation of the letter – Exh.9 which was a letter addressed to  the Director of Food and Drugs Administration stating that it was prepared  at the spot and if that part of the story of Pw.5, P.I. Paes can be  demonstrated to be false, then his entire evidence deserves to be rejected.  As regards this submission, learned Advocate Ms. Collasso has relied on  several judgments and particularly that of this Court in the case of Vikram  Reddy v. State of Goa (2002(1) Goa L.T. 116). Learned Advocate Ms.  Collasso has submitted that this case is entirely covered by Vikram Reddy  (supra) and therefore the accused deserves an acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
10. At the outset, it is to be noted that we do not follow in this  country , the maxim “falsus in uno falsus in onibus”. This maxim has no  general acceptance to be followed as a rule of law. It is only a rule of  caution and after all it is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from  the chaff. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence  to be given in a particular set of circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
11. It appears that the submissions made before this Court were  also made before the learned Special Judge, and, as regards the first  submission, the learned Special Judge noted that the accused faced trial on  the allegation that he was found in possession of 1015 grams of charas.The  learned Special Judge also noted that Pw.1\/Kaissare when asked to find out  the weight of the substance, dehors the wrappings, on 7.3.02, found that  the polythene wrappings weighed 20 grams and the polythene bag weighed  5 grams and the weight of the substance was 970 grams. The learned  Special Judge also observed that the total weight of the substance including  that taken up for analysis was 970 + 16 which would be 986 grams. In  fact, Shri Sardessai, the learned Public Prosecutor was asked to explain as  to how the figure 16 came to be mentioned in the judgment, but neither  the learned P.P. nor the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused  have been able to throw any light on the same. Without finding out what  was the difference in weight, and that too after conviction was recorded,  the learned Special Judge noted that the subsequent analysis was done on  7.3.02 which was after a period of three months and this period would  have dried up the substance in the ordinary course of nature resulting in  loss of moisture and drying of the substance would explain the lower  weight as recorded by the Scientific Officer. As regards the preparation of  letter – Exh.9 colly with seal impression, the learned Special Judge  concluded that Pw.5\/P.I. Paes was an Investigating Officer and could well  have made a mental note of the preceding crime number and for want of  any contemporaneous record, recording of the crime number in the  forwarding letter could not be disbelieved. It appears that the other  circumstances pointed out on behalf of the accused for disbelieving  Pw.5\/P.I. Paes that he had prepared the said letter at the scene, were not  taken note of by the learned Special Judge, as submitted on behalf of the  accused.\n<\/p>\n
12. 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 case of seal. In this case Pw.5\/P.I. Paes has acted  exactly opposite. He claims he kept the seized article with himself and the  seal, he gave to Pw.6\/D’Souza. When the sentence provided is severe, the  procedures followed should be beyond suspicion and above board. The  Officer having the custody of the seized article and the custody of the seals,  should not be the same.All these procedures are required tobe followed in  order to avoid the possibility of tampering with the sample and to lend  assurance to the Court that in a given case there was no such tampering.  This Court in the case of Vikram Reddy v. State of Goa(supra) observed that  a witness who is shown to have stated a falsehood to prove a part of the  prosecution story, cannot be relied upon. He not only renders his testimony  unworthy of acceptance but casts a shadow of doubt on the entire  prosecution case and that a Court should never accept the testimony of a  witness who is shown to have stated a falsehood and his testimony has to be  discarded as a whole.\n<\/p>\n
13. I will first consider the case of the prosecution in relation to the  discrepancy in the weight of the sample as found with the accused at the  time it was weighed at the instructions of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and the weight as  found in the laboratory, by Pw.1\/Kaissare. The case of the prosecution as  can be seen from the panchanama Exh.28 as well as the seizure report –  Exh.29 is that the accused was found with 1 kilo and 15 grams of charas  (1.015 kgs. or 1015 grams). The same weight has also been mentioned on  Exh.9 colly that it is 1 kilo and 15 grams. However, Pw.1\/Kaissare in his  report Exh.10 has stated that the polythene carry bag weighed 1.15 kgs. In  other words, it weighed 1 kilo , 150 grams i.e. 135 grams more than what  was actually seized. Although Pw.1\/Kaissare stated that the substance with  the polythene carry bag was 1.15 kgs., it appears that the said figure has  been corrected by the learned Special Judge in the deposition of the  witness, to read as 1.015 kgs. and inspite of that, when the accused was  questioned in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., what was put to him  was that Pw.1\/Kaissare had stated that the substance weighed 1.15 kgs. As  per Pw.1\/Kaissare he took a representative sample of 110 grams for analysis  and if the said figure is subtracted from 1.150 grams, that could have left a  balance of 1040 grams, but as per the very evidence of Pw.1\/ Kaissare what  was found remaining was 995 grams. In case Pw.1\/Kaissare had used one  gram each of the 13 elongated sticks and thus 13 grams in all to carry out  his analysis, then what would have remained was 1137 grams, but as  already stated what remained was 995 grams. Assuming for a moment that  Pw.1\/Kaissare had made a mistake in mentioning the weight of the sample  as 1.15 kgs. instead of 1.015 kgs., then in that event, after a deduction of  110 grams what would have remained is 905 grams and not 995 grams and  in case only 13 grams were used by him for his analysis, what would have  remained is 1002 grams and not 995 grams. However, it it to be noted that  the report Exh.10 was prepared in the laboratory by Pw.1\/Kaissare and  therefore has got to be considered as more accurate and as per the said  report, the sample weighed 1.15 kgs. or 1150 grams.The prosecution chose  not to reexamine Pw.1\/Kaissare as to how the weight of the seized article  which was stated to be 1.015 kgs.(1015 grams) was found to be 1150  grams. It appears to me, that based on his report Pw.1\/Kaissare had stated  in his evidence that what was weighed by him was 1.15 kgs. and this was  corrected by the learned Special Judge to read as 1.015 kgs. There was no  explanation from the prosecution as to how the seized article which was  1.015 kgs. turned out to be 1.15 kgs. in the laboratory thereby increasing  the weight by 135 grams and which weight was subsequently found to be  995 grams. The only explanation coming from Shri Sardessai, the learned  Public Prosecutor is that the seals on the sample were found in tact by  Pw.1\/Kaissare and had tallied with the specimen seal separately sent vide  Exh.9 colly. Certainly this is not an acceptable explanation in the light of  substantial variance in weight of the seized article when it was weighed by  Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and the same when weighed by Pw.1\/Kaissare. This is not a  case where there was reduction in weight on account of loss of moisture  and the substance drying up as sought to be explained by the learned  Special Judge. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh J. Avasthi v. State  of Goa<\/a> (2004 Drug Cases(Narcotics) 322) has observed that 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. In  other words, nonexplanation about this discrepancy renders the case of  prosecution doubtful. This variance in weight has also got to be considered  in the light of other evidence of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes regarding the preparation of  the letter containing the impression seal and the custody of the impression  seal itself.That is not all.\n<\/p>\n
14. Although the Act provides that the seized article ought not to  be retained by the Investigating Officer for a longer time than required,  there is no provision in the Act which requires the Investigating Officer that  he should hand over the seal as well to some other Officer. This is because  the seal would be required to be used in other cases. In the case at hand,  there appears to be justification for the submission that the seized article as  well as the seal used, had remained in the custody of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes till the  sample was despatched on its way to the laboratory either at 9.30 hrs. or  13.00 hrs., conflictingly stated by Pw.5\/P.I. Paes. It has been stated by  Pw.5\/P.I. Paes that he had handed over the seal to Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza  with a letter under his signature which was duly acknowledged by him. He  has produced the said letter at Exh.35. Pw.5\/P.I. Paes also stated that the  said letter – Exh.35 was prepared on the spot but Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza  has not supported him in that respect. According to him, the letter  Exh.35\/Exh.42 was prepared at the Police Station. Pw.4\/ Lokre, the panch  witness is almost silent as regards the said letter except stating that some  material was typed at the spot. In view of the conflicting versions given by  Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza, it is quite probable that the said  letter was prepared at the Police Station as stated by the latter. Pw.5\/P.I.  Paes first stated that he had handed over the seal to Dy. S.P. D’Souza with a  letter under his signature but in crossexamination he stated that the said  letter was actually handed over to Dy. S.P. D’Souza at the Police Station.  When questioned as to when he took back the seal from Dy. S.P. D’Souza,  he stated that he had taken it back after about 2 or 3 days, if he  remembered correctly, and added to say that it was well after the seized  article was forwarded to the laboratory for analysis and at the same time  stated that there was no record in the station diary on any subsequent day  relating to the receipt of the seal from Dy. S.P. D’Souza. One fails to  understand in case the seal was required to be given to Dy. S.P. D’Souza  under a letter, as to how the same could have been brought back from him  without any letter or for that matter without any record being made in the  station diary. Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza though states that P.I. Paes on return  to the Police Station handed over the seal to him vide Exh.35, Pw.6\/Dy. S.P.  D’Souza is silent as to when the said seal was returned to or taken back by  Pw.5\/P.I. Paes. Therefore, the story of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes that he handed over  the seal alongwith letter Exh.35 is not free from doubt.\n<\/p>\n
15. Pw.5\/P.I. Paes stated that the letter – Exh.9\/34 was prepared  at the spot. Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza also stated that P.I. Paes, before return  to the Police Station had prepared the letter to the Chemical Analyser  namely, Exh.9 colly\/Exh.34, on the spot. However, when Pw.5\/P.I. Paes  was questioned about the crime number having been mentioned on the said  letter, Pw.5\/P.I. Paes first stated that the crime number is recorded only  after the registration of the offence but immediately added to say that  offences relating to drugs in ANC PS are known to them as they are in the  know of the following serial number. Even if some allowance is made to  accept the said statement of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes, inspite of the fact that there  were three more seals and other Officers who could also conduct raids,  because in this case the immediate Superior Officer, namely, Dy. S.P.  D’Souza was accompanying Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and he without being informed  no other raid probably could be conducted, there are other strong  indications which falsify the said claim of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and Pw.6, Dy. S.P.  D’Souza that the said letter Exh.9\/34 was prepared at the spot. Firstly, it  has been submitted on behalf of the accused, and in my view, rightly that  in case the panchanamaExh.28 could carry the address of the place where  it was made, namely, near the petrol pump as to why the letter Exh.9\/34  did not have the same address in case it was prepared at the spot. The said  lettergives an impression, as it has the address of the Police Station that it  was typed and prepared after the arrival at the Police Station. Pw.5\/P.I.  Paes further stated that after return to the Police Station he filed a  complaint on behalf of the State and registered the offence vide ANC PS  crime no.18 of 2001. On this aspect Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza stated that  Crime number is not recorded on the attached property at the spot as it is  not available at the spot and since it is given only after the offence is  registered at the Police Station. The contention of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes was  specifically drawn to a statement on Exh.9 colly\/34 wherein it was stated  that “an offence vide ANC PS crime no.18\/2001 under Section 20(b)(ii)  N.D.P.S. Act. 1985 stands registered on behalf of the State by the  undersigned on 15.12.01 at 6.00 hrs.” It has been argued by learned  Advocate Ms. Collasso that this statement in the said letter Exh.9\/34 is a  clear indication that the said letter was typed after returning to the Police  Station since otherwise Pw.5\/P.I. Paes could not have known that he would  reach at 6.00 hrs. to register the crime. The entire statement reproduced  hereinabove in the said letter is a very clear indication to show that the  letter dated 15.12.01Exh.9 colly\/34 was written after the complaint was  registered at the Police Station upon the arrival of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and at  6.00 hrs. It is well said that witnesses may lie but circumstances do not.  The said letter dated 15.12.01 – Exh.9 colly\/34 is one of very clear  indication that it was prepared after the return at the Police Station and not  at the spot where the seizure was made and where it is claimed to have  been prepared. It is but obvious that Pw.5\/ Paes as well as Pw.6\/Dy. S.P.  D’Souza could not be relied upon when they stated that the said letter was  prepared at the spot of seizure. If the seal was given to Pw.6\/Dy. S.P.  D’Souza alongwith the said letter Exh.34 and was taken back by Pw.5\/P.I.  Paes without any record being made, there is no reason why it should be  believed that the said seal was either not given or it was taken back  immediately after it was given to Dy. S.P. D’Souza. As already stated, the  evidence of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza regarding the  circumstances surrounding the seizure do not at all inspire confidence. In  other words, the evidence of Pw.5\/P.I. Paes and Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza to  the effect that the letter Exh.9 colly\/34 was prepared at the spot or that  after the seizure and sealing of the article, the seal was handed over the  Pw.6\/Dy. S.P. D’Souza does not at all inspire any confidence and in the light  of the discrepancy of weight found by Pw.1\/Kaissare and the weight earlier  found by Pw.5\/P.I. Paes, the possibility that the seized article was  tampered with before it was sent for analysis cannot be ruled out. Here it  may again be stated that Pw.5\/P.I. Paes stated that on the same morning at  about 9.30 hrs. he had forwarded the sealed envelope to the office of C.I.D.,  Crime Branch, Panaji but then he changed the statement to say that the  station diary was made at 13.00 hrs. on 15.12.01 and it is the last statement  which appears is supported by an entry in the station diary and not the first  statement that the sample was sent at about 9.30 hrs. <\/p>\n
16. If Pw.5\/P.I. Paes’s evidence as regards some of the procedures  followed by him cannot be accepted, there is no guarantee that the other  procedures claimed to have been followed by him could be accepted  without reservation namely, regarding the custody and transit of the seized  article from the time it was seized till the time it was despatched to the  laboratory. In the context of this case, reference could be made to a  judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, relied upon by learned  Advocate Ms. Collasso, in the case of Abdul Rashid v. The State of  Maharashtra (1999 Drug Cases 60). It was a case where a sample  containing 20 grams of charas was stated to have been sent to the Chemical  Analyser but the Chemical Analyser found that it was only 16 grams. The  discrepancy was sought to be explained but stating that it was not fatal to  the prosecution as the difference was very little. However, the learned  Division Bench held that it is well settled that in the prosecutions of the  present type, where the evidence in respect to the identity of the contraband  is very crucial , it needs to be emphasised that every aspect and more  importantly, the weight of the contraband, which is something that is one of  the most important features on which it can be distinguished or identified,  must be attended to with a degree of precision and with a degree of  correctness. Any amount of laxity, looseness or error could have fatal  consequences to the prosecution. The Division Bench took note that a  similar view was taken by this Court in Amina Abdul v. State of  Maharashtra(1994 B.Cr.C. 185).\n<\/p>\n
17. In conclusion, it may be stated that there are too many disturbing features in the case of the prosecution so as to accept the same as proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. It appears that the learned Special Judge has only tried to gloss over the serious inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution in order to save the case of the prosecution which in fact was unsavable as it was not free from doubt. Consequently,  the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
18. As a result, the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence  imposed upon the accused by the learned Special Judge is hereby set aside.  The M.O. shall be disposed of as ordered by the learned Special Judge.  Accusedshall be set to liberty forthwith, in case otherwise not required.  N. A. BRITTO, J.  \/vpf.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005 Author: N Britto Bench: N Britto JUDGMENT N.A. Britto, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment\/order of the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Mapusa dated 12\/16 July, 2004 by which the appellant herein – accused has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-05T03:21:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-05T03:21:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":5014,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-05T03:21:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-05T03:21:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-05T03:21:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005"},"wordCount":5014,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005","name":"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy ... on 6 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-05T03:21:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopal-bahadur-vs-state-of-goa-through-p-i-vincy-on-6-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopal Bahadur vs State Of Goa, Through P.I. Vincy … on 6 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112505","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}