IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 3054 OF 2007 S T A T E THROUGH P. I. ATTACHED TO ANC POLICE STATION ... Applicant Versus EDUARD SCHRABECK ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 14th July, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the applicant. 2. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 vide judgment dated 20/07/2007. 3. It appears that after acquittal, the accused who is a foreigner has left the country. 4. I have perused the judgment with the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The accused was charged and tried with the allegation that on 9/03/2006 at about 18.30 hrs., the accused was found in possession of 4.362 kgs. of charas, near the school at Arambol. The case of the accused was that he was falsely implicated. 6. The learned Special Judge was pleased to give benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit him under the said Sections, as there were manipulations as regards investigations. Firstly, learned Special Judge doubted the recording of prior information as it recorded the exact height of the accused as 5',9", in the light of the statement of PW5/Vernekar that the height was measured after the arrest of the accused. Secondly, the learned Special Judge has found manipulation as regards the letter/Exhibit 30 which was prepared, as regards handing over the seal and has opined that the letter bearing no. 739 could not have been prepared at the spot. The learned Special Judge has also come to the conclusion that the story that seal was handed over, as stated by the prosecution, could not be accepted and this was in the light of the vague answer given by PW4/Bousset Silva that he had received it between 20.10 to 22.10 hrs. and his further statement that the seal impression itself affixed on the said letter was not clear and therefore he was unable to verify whether it was the same seal. 7. Next, the learned Special Judge concluded that the seal and the sealed packet had remained in the possession of the same Officer till it was dispatched in the laboratory and referring to the case of Pralhad Bhagat V/s. State (2004 Drugs Cases 227) concluded that even if there was no material to show that there was tampering of the seals, it will not give any guarantee that the sealed packed was in safe custody. Ultimately, the learned Special Judge gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him. 8. Considering the above, in my view, this would not be a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Application, therefore, is hereby rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH