IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that procedural lapses in the handling of seized narcotics do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the evidence of possession is compelling and no prejudice to the accused is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent/Customs Department.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of Conviction dated 19.05.2022 along with the Order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Aizawl whereby the appellant/accused was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs. 100,000/-in default of payment of fine, she is to undergo another period of one year Rigorous Imprisonment, in connection with SR No. 164/2016.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 13.05.2016, the Customs Division, Aizawl received specific information that one lady in Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS 11 E 0345, travelling from Aizawl towards Silchar via Durtlang road was carrying some prohibited drugs. On receipt of such information, the Customs Officer proceeded towards Selesih, Aizawl and the vehicle was intercepted at Waiting Shed, Selesih. On being searched, some bundles containing maroon colour tablets suspected to be methamphetamine was recovered from the possession of a lady, who introduced herself as Smt. Vanlalruati, the appellant. On demand, the appellant could not produce any valid document to support her legal purchase, possession, transportation of the said goods which is in violation of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and punishable under Section 22(c) of the said Act. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and the case was registered. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been laid against the appellant and trial was commenced before the Court of Special Judge, Aizawl.

4. During trial, charge was framed under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act against the appellant to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined five witnesses to substantiate the prosecution case and the defence also adduced two witnesses in support of her case. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

5. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution as provided under Section 100 (4) CrPC at the time of search and seizure. PWs-1 and 2 cannot be called as independent witnesses as they are merely co-passengers of the accused appellant in the alleged vehicle. It is further submitted that the alleged witnesses were not inhabitants of the locality adjacent to the place of search. Hence, they are not eligible to stand as independent witnesses as per the provision of law.

6. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Custom Officer had stopped the alleged vehicle near Selesih Waiting Shed for checking and the alleged seized articles were detected therein. However, no weighment, packing or taking of samples of the seized articles were done at the spot which indicates that there has been gross violation of the Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India. Hence, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2022 is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that on perusal of the evidences of PWs-1 and 2, it reveals that the seized articles were not recovered from the possession of the accused appellant. Moreover, there is no proof that the seized articles were recovered and seized under the conscious possession of the accused. This is indicating of the fact that the alleged seizure and arrest was not done as per provision of law and there has been violation of Section 46(2) CrPC and as such, the impugned Judgment and Order are liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the provision of Sect