Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Hrangkapthanga S/o Chhuanmawia –Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. – Respondents
Crl.A.6 of 2020, I.A.(Crl.) 8 of 2020
Decided on : 08-06-2023
ND&PS Act - Drug Offenses - Sections 8, 22(c), 25, 35, 42, 52A of ND&PS Act; Section 14 of Foreigners Act - The court discussed the provisions of the ND&PS Act, particularly focusing on the requirements for seizure and possession of contraband substances. It emphasized the importance of following procedural mandates under Sections 42 and 52A, and the implications of conscious possession under Section 35. The court interpreted these provisions to affirm the legality of the seizure and the appellant's conviction, concluding that the prosecution met its burden of proof regarding the appellant's knowledge and possession of the drugs.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for possessing 338,000 tablets of methamphetamine, weighing 49 kilograms, found in secret compartments of his vehicle during a police search based on prior information. He was charged under the ND&PS Act and the Foreigners Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had followed the necessary legal procedures for seizure and that the evidence established the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband. The discrepancies in the color of the seized substances were deemed insufficient to undermine the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the seizure of the contraband was lawful under the ND&PS Act, whether the appellant had conscious possession of the drugs, and whether the procedural requirements of the Act were met.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had established the appellant's possession of the drugs, and the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to demonstrate that he did not have conscious possession, as per Sections 35 and 54 of the ND&PS Act. The court also found that clerical errors in documentation did not invalidate the seizure process.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr.Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state respondent.
[2.] The instant appeal is filed under Section 36B, ND&PS Act r/w Section 374(2) Cr.P.C to set aside and quashed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND & PS, Champhai and the impugned Conviction dated 04.12.2019 arising out of Criminal Trial No. 1839/2018 (D) under Section 22 (c) & 25 ND&PS Act r/w Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, wherein the appellant was convicted under sections 8/22 (c) ND& PS Act,1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, i.d. Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of another 1 (one) month.
[3.] The prosecution story of the case in brief is that on Dt. 28.09.2018, Mr. H.Lalengzama, SI of Police submitted a written First Information Report (FIR in short) to the Officer-in-Charge, Champhai Police Station to the effect that one vehicle Bolero Camper bearing No. MZ-01-N-4940 was being detained at Dungtlang on ground of strong suspicion of carrying contraband substances. In pursuant to the information Champhai police team rushed to Bungtlang village. On search of the vehicle, 169 bundles; each bundle contained 10 packets wherein one packet contained 200 tablets suspected to be methamphetamine were recovered/seized from the vehicle in hidden compartments/chamber made beneath the seats of the vehicle. Mr. H. Lalengzauva, S.I. police altogether recovered/seized 338000 nos. tablets of methamphetamine weighing 49 Kilograms. He submitted a report about the seizure of the drugs and the arrest of appellant to the officer-in-charge, Champhai Police Station. Champhai Police Station registered a case vide CPI.PS Case No.117/2018 under Section 22 (c) &25 of ND & PS Act against the driver of the vehicle namely Mr. Hrangkapthanga (36) S/o Chhuanmawia/appellant, a permanent resident of Tahan, Myanmar, a temporary resident of Bethel Veng, Champhai, Mizoram.
[4.] Having collected evidences of illegal possession/ transportation of the Methamphetamine, the case I.O submitted the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 22 (c) & 25 of ND&PS Act, read with Section 14 of Foreigners Act.
[5.] The case was sent to Special Court of ND&PS Act on 27.11.2018 for trial. The learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS framed formal charges under Section 22(c) & 25 of ND&PS Act against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, 6 (six) prosecution witnesses were examined. The appellant on examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the evidence adduced against him.
[6.] The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties found the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 8/22 (c) ND&PS Act and thereafter, sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, i.d. Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of another 1 (one) month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence order, the appellant has approached this Court and filed the instant appeal petition.
[7.] Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Champhai is liable to be set aside since the seizure had taken place on the basis of prior information and that the ground of belief and information was suppose to be recorded under Section 42(2) ND&PS Act, which has not been done. He has pointed out that the date on Exhibit P-2 which is the grounds of belief is recorded as 27.09.2019 while the date when the information was received by PW-1 was on 27.09.2018. Grounds of belief cannot be after one year of the incident. He also submits that there was no proper civilian witness. The case I.O also did not mention that the inventory was placed before the Magistrate. He points out that the provisions of Section 52 (a)(2) of
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....
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 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 burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove his innocence once the prosecution establishes the possession of contraband substances and compliance with the ND&PS Act provisions.
Conviction under the Act requires the prosecution to prove foundational facts, including valid search, conscious possession, and an unbroken chain of custody, beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to comp....
The prosecution must comply with procedures outlined in the NDPS Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
A reverse burden of proof lies upon the accused, contrary to the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence for presumption of innocence unless proved guilty
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
