JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Lalpianfela as well as Ms.Vanneihsiami learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal under section 374 Cr.PC/415 BNSS against the impugned judgment and sentence dated 18.10.2024 by the learned Special Court ND&PS Act Champhai in Crl. Trial No.197/2023 corresponding to Khawzawl PS Case No.19/2023 under section 21(C)/25 of the NDPS Act by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rupees 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), in default to undergo SI for 6 months.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is that on 26.04.2023, ASI C.Vanlalruata of Khawzawl P.S submitted a suo moto FIR stating that on 26.04.2023 at 12.20 AM a telephonic information was received from Tuisenphai check gate that one vehicle i20 bearing registration No.MZ01E 7744 driven by the present accused/appellant was detained on suspicion of carrying contraband items. Accordingly, he and his party rushed to the spot after submission of information in writing to the Officer-in-charge Khawzawl Police station. On arrival at the P.O they conducted search of the vehicle and recovered 80 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin weighing 894.18 grams. The recovered items were seized in the presence of reliable civilian witnesses from the possession of the appellant and the co-accused. The accused/appellant was arrested and brought to Khawzawl Police station along with the seized articles.Thereafter, the Khawzawl P.S case No.19/2023 under section 21(C)/25 NDPS Act was registered and duly investigated.

4. During investigation the I.O visited the P.O i.e Tuisenphai check gate about 4 kms from the police station. The complainant and the other witnesses and the accused persons were also examined. The inventory of the seized articles, the application for certifying correctness of inventory, certifying the photographs, drawing samples of the seized articles in the presence of the Magistrate and permission for disposal of seized articles were all duly prepared. On 26.04.2023, 5 grams was drawn as sample from each packet in the presence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 27.04.2023 the samples of the seized articles were sent to FSL Aizawl for expert analysis. The FSL report confirmed that the seized articles contained heroin with purity of 83% w/w. Having found a prima facie case against the appellant/accused, the I.O submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant under section 21(C)/25 NDPS Act and sentup the appellant to Court to face trial.

5. The trial Court framed charge under section 21(C)/25 NDPS Act against the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents while the accused person examined one defence witness.

6. The learned trial Court framed 2 points for determination:-

(a) whether the accused is guilty of the charge under section 21(C/25 of the NDPS Act.

(b) if the above question is answered in affirmative what shall be the punishment.

7. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Lalpianfela submits that there has been a blatant violation of the requirements of section 52A of the NDPS Act. According to the learned counsel the procedure laid down in section 52A requires the investigating agency to produce and exhibit the

(i) inventory of goods seized with due certification of the Magistrate as regard the correctness of such inventory,

(ii) secondly, the photographs of the seized contraband which were taken before the Magistrate with due certification and

(iii) thirdly the list of samples drawn from the seized contraband with a certificate from the Magistrate regarding the correctness of the list of samples so drawn which acts as a primary evidence in respect of an offence under the NDPS Act.

By relying on the case of Binod Yadav and Anr vs Union of India & Anr, 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document