NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (ND&PS Act), Aizawl Judicial District, Champhai, Mizoram in Session Registration No. 30/2016 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 190/2016 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- with a default clause.

3. The case of the prosecution briefly is that on 11.10.2015, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr. V.L. Chama Ralte, Officer-in-charge of Zokhawthar Police Outpost along with other Police personnels while performing duty in the outpost recovered 32 grams of contraband substances suspected to be heroin from the possession of the appellant. As a result, Champhai Police Station Case No. 157/2015 dated 11.12.2015 under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act was registered against the appellant after an FIR was filed. The case was investigated into by Mr. Lalsangliana, Sub-Inspector of Police. During his investigation, he visited the place of recovery and seizure. He arrested the accused and interrogated him. Upon finding a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act, he submitted a charge sheet against the appellant before the Court. Samples of the seized contraband substances were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at New Secretariat Complex, Aizawl for chemical analysis. Upon such examination, the seized contraband substances were found to be heroin.

4. The Court then framed formal charge under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act against the appellant and it was read over and explained to him in the language he understood. The appellant then pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, although six prosecution witnesses were cited, the prosecution examined two prosecution witnesses only. As for the defence, no witnesses were examined. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the appellant to be guilty of the charge under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act and thus convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned hereinabove.

5. Mr. K. Laldinliana, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Trial Court vide its Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2018 cannot be sustained mainly on four grounds. Firstly, the Officer who arrested the appellant and seized the contraband substance was only a Sub-Inspector of Police who was otherwise not authorized to make such arrest and seizure. He submits that the State Government is empowered under Section 42(1) of the ND&PS Act to authorize any such Officer being an Officer superior in rank to a Peon, Sepoy or Constable to conduct search and seizure and to exercise the powers and perform duties specified in Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. The State Government therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act has empowered all Officers of an above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Excise and Police to exercise such powers vide Notification under Memo No. B.12029/12/85-EXC/129(A) dated 07.03.1986, which is holding the field as on date. However, in the instant case the arrest and seizure was made by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and therefore, the impugned Judgment & Order cannot be sustained.

6. Secondly, in order to establish their case, the prosecution did not examine any civilian witnesses but only examined the Seizing Officer and the case Investigating Officer. Therefore, even on this ground, the impugned Judgment & Order cannot be sustained.

7. Thirdly, the learned counsel submits that the appellant after the evidences were taken in the trial was not examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore