Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Lalpianfela, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2. The appellant has challenged the Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2017, passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Champhai, in Sessions Case No. 51/2016, wherein he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20 (b) (ii) & (B) ND&PS Act, 1985 to suffer R.I for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, i.d., S.I for 2 (two) months. He has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act to suffer S.I for a period of 10 (ten) months.

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2017 should be set aside on 3 (three) grounds. Firstly, the Police Sub Inspector, who was the complainant in the case, was also the Seizing Officer and Investigating Officer. Secondly, Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 was not followed, as the complainant did not take down in writing, the information received by her with regard to recovery of the seized ganja from the house of the appellant. Thirdly, sample was not drawn from the seized article in the presence of a Magistrate, as required under Section 52-A of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

4. The appellant's counsel submits that though the seized article was seized from the house of the appellant, the seizure witnesses came into the appellant's house only after the seized article had been recovered and were not present during the search.

5. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that possession of ganja is proved in this case, as the appellant has not denied the recovery and seizure of the seized articles from his house. She also submits that as there is a lack of manpower in Ngopa Village, where the incident took place, S.I. Lucy Zosangzuali had to act as complainant, Seizing Officer and I.O of the case simultaneously.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2017 clearly states that S.I Lucy Zosangzuali was the complainant, Seizing Officer and I.O of the case. She also submitted the charge-sheet.

8. In the case of State Vs. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369, the Apex Court has held that when investigation of the case has been done by the same officer who registered the crime, the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused, as the investigation would be suspect to fair and impartial investigation and as such, the entire proceedings would be vitiated. Para 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment passed in State Vs. Rajangam is reproduced below:

"8. The short question which falls for consideration of this Court is: whether P.W.6 who registered the crime could have investigated the case or an independent officer ought to have investigated the case?

9. The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. In Megha Singh v. State of Haryana this Court has taken a categorical view that the officer who arrested the accused should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

"4. ... We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. P.W.3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.

10. The ratio of Megha's case has been followed by other cases. In another case in Balasundaran v. State, in para 16, the Madras High Court took the same view.