Mr. Olaf Wumling vs State Of Goa on 7 July, 1999
7. In view of the above not only the prosecution has established that the provisions of section 50 were complied with, but also that 10 gms. of charas was recovered from the possession of the accused through the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 which was in fact accepted by the accused in the course of arguments before the Special Judge and to which a specific reference has been made by the learned Special Judge in para 6 of the impugned judgment. Though the accused has stated that he was addicted to charas for the last 20 years, yet no evidence was led to show that 10 gms. of charas which was recovered from his possession was in fact meant for his personal consumption. In the absence of such evidence the bare plea of the accused that he was in the habit of consumption of charas does not help him so as to bring his case in respect of recovery of 10 gms. within the scope and ambit of section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act. The Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Batta, J.) was a party has held in Austin Gladwin Roy v. State of Goa, : Criminal Appeal No. 3/1998 that even if there is material to hold that the accused is found in possession of small quantity, yet the accused has to probabilise, on basis of the material on record, that the substance recovered from the accused is meant for his personal consumption. Having failed to probabilise the same, the accused cannot claim any benefit under section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act.