IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Samuel T.T. Thanga S/o T. Hauzaliana (L) – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Another – Respondents
Crl. Appeal No. 26 of 2022, Crl. Appeal No. 7 of 2023, I.A. (Crl.) No. 10 of 2023
Decided On : 02-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural events leading to arrest and seizure (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. witness testimony regarding drug seizure (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. handling and examination of seized samples (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. nature of drug and evidence supporting case (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. procedural issues and questioning of accused (Para 16 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. arguments presented by the appellants regarding the insufficiency of evidence. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. court's rationale for acquitting the appellants. (Para 18 , 41) |
| 8. compliance with ndps procedural requirements (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. legal standards for evidence and burden of proof (Para 34 , 35) |
| 10. significance of interrogation under cr.p.c. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. final decision and liberation of the appellants. (Para 42) |
| 12. defense arguments regarding seizure and witness reliability (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 13. prosecution claims and evidence handling (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 14. implications of defendant's rights under ndps (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. insufficiency of prosecution evidence (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 16. benefit of doubt principle in criminal cases (Para 55 , 56) |
| 17. final judgment and order (Para 57 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
1. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Malsawmtluangi in Crl. Appeal No. 7 of 2023 and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala learned counsel for the appellant Sh. Samuel T.T. Thanga in Crl. Appeal No. 26 of 2022, also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. PP for the state respondent in both the cases. The appellants are assailing their conviction under section 22(c) ND&PS Act arising from a common Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Fast Track Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Kolasib District, in SC(K) No. 198 of 2015 Crl. Tr. No. 1267/2015 and the sentence order dated 25.10.2022 wherein both the appellants, on their conviction under section 22 (C) ND&PS Act were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,00,00/- each, in default to undergo R.I. 1(one) year. Since the instant appeals are arising out of a common Judgment & Order, both the appeals are considered together.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 29.05.2015, SI K. Lalmawizuala lodged a written FIR stating that information was received from reliable source indicated that there was a huge quantity of contraband drugs suspected to be Methamphetamine at B. SE Thingdawl Village, Kolasib District. Accordingly, the authorized person SI K. Lalmawizuala of Spl. Narcotic PS with Police party accompanied by the Addl. SP CID (Crime) and the Officer in Charge of Spl. Narcotic PS proceeded to Thingdawl Hmar veng on the morning of 29.05.2015 to conduct search operation and intercepted one suspected person Malsawmtluangi (38) D/o VZ Kapmawia of Thingdawl Hmar veng at her residence.
3. The search party conducted searching of the residence of the suspected person Malsawmtluangi (38) D/O VZ Kapmawia of Thingdawl Hmarveng and recovered one black Air-Bag from the bedroom, kept on the floor, hidden near the bed, which contained huge quantity of contraband drugs suspected to be Methamphetamine. On further checking, it was found that the bag contained 9 (nine) identical yellow packages and 1 (one) package covered with black polythene, total 10 (ten) packages. The same were seized on the spot in presence of the above mentioned two local reliable witnesses and prepared seizure memo. The total number of tablets was 58800 weighing 5.586 kgs with an estimated value of Rs. 176,46,000/- at local market. Statement of seizure witnesses were recorded on the spot in separate sheet. The accused Malsawmtluangi, stated that she had received the said contraband from one Samuel TT Thanga @Thangtea (35) S/o T. Hauzaliana of Kolasib College Veng, who was also arrested in the presence of local witnesses and his arrest intimation was given to his wife. From the light of the enquiry and based on their statements recorded, Specia
Bhim Ram and Others vs. State of Assam
Balwinder Singh (Binda) vs. Narcotics Control Bureau
Kalicharan vs. State of U.P. (2023) 2 SCC 583
Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam
The court ruled that procedural lapses under the NDPS Act invalidated the conviction, emphasizing that non-compliance with Section 52A merits the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The standard of proof for possession under the NDPS Act requires both physical control and knowledge of the substance, which was upheld despite procedural lapses.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in drug possession cases, once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of conscious possession, as supported by Sections 3....
Point of Law : Burden is always upon prosecution to prove the case against the person accused with proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, the veracity of evidence, and the benefit of doubt in criminal cases.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions under the NDPS Act is essential for upholding convictions; failure to produce seized contraband and lack of proper inventory preparation undermines the pro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.