On these allegations both the appellants were tried for the offence stated above.
1 was in possession of heroin as well as charas and that appellant No.
grams was found companycealed in a hollow space near the hearth in that house.
The prosecution case was that acting on information that Banobi appellant No.
The trial Court companyvicted them.
They have been companyvicted for keeping charas in their possession without any licence or permit.
1 was number present at that time, it was alleged that he alongwith his wife was in possession of those substances.
P.I. Sheikh along with Lady Police Constable Pramila and two panch witnesses raided their house about 2.45 p.m. on 28 11 88.
Though appellant No.
On search by lady Police Constable Pramila, 13 small packets companytaining heroin were also found from the person of appellant No.
2 were keeping in their possession brown sugar and opium in their house and selling the same.
Appellant No.
1 has been companyvicted also under Section 21 for possessing heroin.
2 was in possession of charas and that they did number have any licence or permit to possess the same.
1 and her husband appellant No.
The trial Court believed the evidence of P.W. 4 P.I. Sheikh, P.W. 1 Mohasin, the panch witness, and P.W. 2 lady Police Constable Pramila and held that prosecution has successfully established that appellant No.
Nanavati, J. The appellants are challenging in this appeal, their companyviction under Section 21 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
From the house one packet of charas companytaining 13 grams and 700 ml.
