The non-production of the entire contraband material is not a ground for acquittal, and the court has the discretion to reduce the sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vanlalnghaka. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The present appeal is filed by the two convict appellants against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Champhai in SR No. 15/2018 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 121/2018, by which they have been convicted under Section 21(c) ND&PS Act and sentenced to undergo 20 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, i.d., RI for 2 months. The appellants were also convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 months each.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.08.2017, S.I. H. Lalengzama of Champhai Police Station received an information at around 3:45 PM, to the effect that heroin was going to be smuggled into India from Myanmar. S.I. H. Lalengzama thereafter put down in writing the information received by him and after taking prior authorization from the O.C. Champhai P.S., he and his party conducted checking at Dungtlang Police check gate. In the meantime, a red alert had also been issued to all the Police Stations and Police Outpost within Champhai District. One two wheeler (Apache black colour) bearing registration No. MZ 01 B - 8763, was detained on the ground of suspicion at the Dungtlang Police check gate. The bike, was carrying a yellow sack from which 30 soap cases containing suspected heroin weighing 439 grams was recovered. The two appellants had been riding the said two wheeler prior to being detained at Dungtlang Police Outpost check gate. Samples of the seized article was then sent to the FSL and the FSL examination report proved that the seized articles were heroin. The heroin was seized by S.I. H. Lalengzama on 19.08.2017, in the presence of civilian witnesses and the appellants were also arrested by S.I. Lalsangliana on 19.08.2017. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Lalsangliana. However, as S.I. Lalsangliana was suspended, the filing of the charge sheet was done by the O.C of Champhai P.S. i.e., H.P. Vanlalchaka (PW-6). The I.O. in the charge sheet has recorded that a prima facie case under Section 21(c)/29 ND&PS Act read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was found against the appellants. Further, charge under Section 25 ND&PS Act was also found against the appellant No. 1, as he had allowed his two wheeler to transport the seized heroin.

4. Charges were framed against the appellants on 28.02.2018 under Section 21(c)/29 ND&PS Act read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. Thereafter, 5 prosecution witnesses were examined i.e., PW 1 - 3 & 5 - 6. Thereafter, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After final hearing was conducted, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 29.08.2019 was passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act Champhai in Session Registration No. 15/2018, wherein the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act and under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present jail appeal. As the same is a jail appeal, an Amicus Curiae had been appointed by this Court. However, just prior to the hearing of this case, the appellants have engaged a counsel in their private capacity. Accordingly, besides hearing the learned Amicus Curiae, the appellants are represented by their counsel.

6. The challenge made to the impugned judgment and order by the appellants is on the following grounds:

wxyz

(i) that during the entire Trial Court proceedings, the bulk quantity of the seized heroin was neither produced before the Trial Court nor was it exhibited. Also the samples taken out from the seized heroin were never exhibited in the Trial Court. As such, the inventory of the seized articles (Exhibit P-15) could not be said to be proved against the appellants. The non-production of the bulk seized article was accordingly in violation