The court affirmed that once possession of narcotics is established, the accused must prove lack of knowledge regarding the substance's illicit nature, as per Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and Order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl in S.R. No. 238/2018 arising out of Crl. Tx. Ex. No 1623/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted u/s 21 (c) ND&PS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for another 1 year.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Sub-Inspector of the Special Narcotics Police Station, CID (Crime) submitted an FIR dated 11.06.2018, stating that he had received information that some persons were suspected of committing an offence under the ND&PS Act, 1985 in the New Market area of Dawrpui. In this regard, Information Report was immediately submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of the Special Narcotics Police Station, who immediately issued authorization letter u/s 41(2) of the ND&PS Act, authorizing the informant to inquire into the matter.

4. The informant immediately proceeded towards the New Market area, Dawrpui and requested two persons to become independent witnesses, who were residents of Dawrpui locality.

5. On reaching the New Market, Dawrpui locality, the Police saw the suspected persons standing near the High Mast in the New Market area, Dawrpui. The suspected persons, i.e. the appellant and co-accused Lalruatpuii were carrying one black ruck sack and one Rambo polythene respectively, suspected to be containing heroin. They approached the suspected persons and informed them that they were suspected of possessing illegal substances in contravention of the ND&PS Act. Before search was conducted on the suspected persons, they were asked as to whether they wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, which they declined.

6. On a search being conducted of the suspected person’s belongings in the presence of the 2 local independent witnesses, they found a Rambo polythene inside the black ruck sack. The Rambo polythene contained a number of plastic soap cases, which was suspected to contain heroin. There were 39 plastic soap cases containing suspected heroin. The heroin was 494.98 grams and the same was seized on 11.06.2018 at 5pm. The possessor of the illegal drugs i.e., the appellant and co-accused Lalruatpuii, were arrested.

7. An inventory of the seized articles was made and an application was submitted to the Magistrate on 12.06.2018, for certifying the correctness of the st inventory, photographs and drawing of sample. The Judicial Magistrate 1 Class thereafter compared the inventory and the articles seized and put his signature on the inventory in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

8. After recording the statements of the witnesses and after receiving the FSL report, which stated that the 39 samples drawn were found to be heroin, with purity of about 85%, the case I.O. submitted the charge sheet, having found a prima facie case u/s 21(c)/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 against the appellant and the co-accused Lalruatpuii.

9. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant u/s 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, for violation of Section 8(c) of the ND&PS Act, to which the appellant claimed that though the 39 soap cases was seized from him, the same did not belong to him as he was simply the delivery boy. The appellant thus pleaded not guilty.

10. During the trial, the learned Trial Court examined 5 prosecution witnesses and the appellant, who was the sole defence witness No. 1 (DW-1). During the trial, the co-accused Lalruatpuii absconded and forfeited her bail bond. The co-accused Lalruatpuii was proclaimed an absconder vide Order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court. After the evidence of the witnesses were recorded, the appellant was examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein, he was asked to explain the evidence that had been recorded against him. Th