IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant's admission of conscious possession and the procedural regularity of the seizure influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant along with Mrs.Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.

2. This is a jail appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 24.06.2018 passed by the learned Judge, ND & PS Act in Crl. Trial No. 1303/2018 reference Champhai Excise Case No. 150/2018/CPI under Section 21(c) ND & PS Act wherein the appellant was convicted under section 21(C) ND7PS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years and pay a fine of RS.10,000/- in default S.I for another 3( three) months.

3. Brief facts of the case is that an FIR was submitted on 24.06.2018 to the effect that Tuantuahkimi aged, 56 yrs, (2) Mangzakima, aged 19 yrs (instant petitioner) was arrested in connection with the seizure of 307 grams of heroin on 23.06.2018 at 9:30 P.M at New Champhai. Accordingly, the case was registered as Excise Case No.150/18/CPI under section 21(c) of ND & PS Act and duly investigated into. The S.A was seized from under the seat of the auto rickshaw and during the investigation, the driver of the auto-rickshaw was also made an accused in the case.

4. During investigation, the case I/O on interrogated the accused persons and examined the witnesses. On receiving the FSL report which confirmed that the seized articles was Heroin of 82% and 83% in purity, the case I.O found prima facie case against the 3(three) accused persons u/s 21(c) ND&PS Act and accordingly filed the charge sheet. The case was committed for trial to the Special Court, ND & PS Act. The learned Judge under ND&PS Act, framed charge under section 21(c) of ND & PS Act, to which the appellant and the co-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Thereafter as many as the 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused persons were also examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the appellant u/s 21(c) ND&PS Act and acquitted the other 2 (two) co-accused. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OFTHE LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE

5. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that the impugned Judgment & Order is liable to be set aside on various grounds. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that on the perusal of the evidence adduce by the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that the seized articles was not seized from the possession of the appellant, but was seized from under the seat of the Auto Rickshaw. The PW-No.1 who is the civilian witness, had also mentioned that in his cross examination that he was not present while the search of the Auto Rickshaw was conducted. He had also admitted that he does not remember from where the S.A was recovered. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that though the civilian witness PW No.2, who is the Secretary of the Village Council of New Champhai, had stated that after the Seizing Officer weighed of the substances, he repacked all the containers and properly sealed them with the signatures of the civilian witnesses on each packages, however, these signatures were not exhibited in the court.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further submits that though the case I/O had mentioned that 15 grams each was drawn as sample from the seized articles, however on perusal of the FSL report, it is seen that the samples examined were weighed different grams and not 15 grams each. This discrepancy in the amount samples stated to be drawn by the case I/O and the grams mentioned in the FSL report makes the prosecution case doubtful. She further submits that the Assistant Director, FSL, Aizawl was examined in the court, he did not explain the difference in the weight of the samples examined by him.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further submits that though the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had not denied the incriminating evidence that on 23.06.2018, he went