SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2168

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Smt. Lalthanthuami W/o Lalhmangaiha - Appellant
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Anr. - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 7 of 2024
Decided On : 11-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Vanlalhriata
For the Respondent: Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. P.P

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had exclusive possession of contraband; procedural irregularities can undermine the case.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(b), 41(2), 42, 43, 52A - Conviction for possession of contraband - Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had exclusive possession of seized contraband; inadequacies in evidence presented, particularly regarding lack of identification of key witnesses, non-production of seized items, and procedural irregularities in handling of evidence. (Paras 18, 20, 26, 30, 34)

(B) Legal Authority for Seizure - It was determined that the Officer's authority to act outside territorial jurisdiction under the NDPS Act was lawful and did not invalidate the prosecution's case. (Paras 18, 26)

(C) Statutory Compliance - The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act; failure could lead to a presumption of reasonable doubt regarding possession. (Paras 27, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
On 11.08.2020, contraband drugs suspected to be heroin were seized from the accused when she attempted to claim a parcel containing them at a courier service after they were secretly followed by police acting on a tip-off; evidence showed procedural irregularities during the seizure. (Paras 3, 4, 14)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution was unable to present key evidence such as the seized items, and the trial lacked adequate witnesses to corroborate the seizure and possession. (Paras 34)

Issues: Whether proper procedure was followed in the seizure of contraband? Whether the accused was in exclusive possession of the contraband? Did jurisdictional issues affect the legality of the arrest and seizure? (Paras 12, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that procedural lapses in the investigation and trial undermined the prosecution’s case, and that pivotal evidence supporting the claim of possession was insufficient to support a conviction. (Paras 34)

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual sequence of drug seizure (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's analysis of evidence and procedural compliance (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. submissions regarding procedural violations (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. legal standards on evidence compliance (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
5. conclusion on prosecution failure (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State Respondents.

Brief facts:-

2. On 11.08.2020, Mr. Lalpianpuia, Assistant Sub Inspector of Mamit Police Station lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Officer-in- Charge, Kolasib Police Station regarding the seizure of contraband drugs and apprehension of a suspect dealing in the said drugs. The informant had stated that on 10.08.2020, he had received information that one maxi cab sumo having a service route between Aizawl-Kolasib was carrying contraband substances and was proceeding towards Mamit. Having put the information in writing, he informed the matter to his superior Officer i.e. the Officer-In-Charge of Mamit Police Station, who in turn issued an authorization letter as per Section-41(2) of ND&PS Act for further necessary action as per law.

3. The FIR further stated that acting upon the information and the authorization, the informant and his team proceeded towards Mamit junction where the said maxi cab was supposed to arrive. At around 08:30 PM, the suspected maxi cab sumo arrived at the junction and was stopped. The maxi cab sumo was taken to Mamit Police Station and in presence of senior police officers, like Additional Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Officer-In-Charge, the maxi cab sumo was inspected. However, as the owner of the suspected contraband substances was not found in the sumo, the vehicle was released. Thereafter, the maxi cab sumo was secretly followed by the police team when it proceeded to Kolasib. The sumo reached Kolasib the following day around 03:30 AM. The Police team stealthily pursued the sumo from behind until it reached HB counter office, Venglai, Kolasib where the driver dropped/delivered the suspected carton box/parcel strongly suspected to contain contraband substances. At around 09:30 AM in the morning, the police team came back to the counter and while they were in the counter office, the accused came to the HB counter and took delivery of the parcel/carton box suspected to contain contraband substances. She was intercepted and detained in the counter office by the police team. The Police team informed the matter to Kolasib Police Station. The Officer-In-charge of the Kolasib police station and his team comprising a woman constable arrived soon at the HB counter office. As per the instruction of the officer-in-charge, Kolasib Police Station, the informant opened the suspected parcel/carton box in presence of two civilian witnesses and the accused. The police found Sunday tea mix, tea plus and 8(eight) soap cases from inside the parcel/carton box. All the soap cases contained substances suspected to be heroin. The substances were seized and weighed on the spot in presence of witnesses. It was 107 grams in weight. The accused Lalthanthuami (47), w/o Lalhmangaiha, resident of Khuangpuilam was arrested and produced in Kolasib police station.

4. On the basis of the FIR aforesaid, Kolasib Police registered Kolasib P.S Case No. 59/2020 dated 11.08.2020 under Section 21 (b) of ND&PS Act, 1985 against the appellant herein.

5. The Investigating officer to whom the case was marked by the Officer-in-Charge of Kolasib Police Station produced the seized substances in the Court along with the accused for the purpose of drawing samples, judicial remand of the accused and for further necessary actions. He drew representative samples in the presence of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib. He sent the same to the Forensic Science Lab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top