Sh. Lalnuntluanga vs The State Of Mizoram

Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, were heard on 03.08.2026, and the judgment was reserved. However, as certain issues required clarification, the matter was relisted on 18.08.2026, and having obtained the clarification, the judgement is delivered on 19.08.2026.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is undergoing sentence imposed upon him by the judgment and order passed on 13.11.2023 by the Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Champhai Judicial District, in Crl. Tr. No. 2/2022 A/o Champhai PS Case No. 89/2022. The appellant was held guilty of the commission of offences under Section 29(c)/25/29, ND&PS Act, and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs 1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo RI for 6 (six) months. The father of the appellant herein, who was the co-accused and was convicted along with the appellant, had met his demise while carrying out the sentence imposed.

On 13.07.2022, the Officer-in-charge of the Traffic Cell of Champhai Police Station had lodged an FIR stating that on 13.07.2022, the Traffic Cell of the Champhai PS had conducted checking on different vehicles at around 3:00 PM at Champhai and a Maruti 800 car was stopped. 22 soap cases, containing brown powder suspected to be heroin, weighing 271 grams, were seized from the possession of the appellant herein and his father from the vehicle driven by the appellant herein. The suitcases were kept inside the back seat of the car, concealed in a bag, and the accused were travelling in the vehicle. The recovered items were seized after preparing grounds of belief and seizure memo in the presence of reliable witnesses. The FIR further stated that the value of the seized articles was estimated at Rs.1,35,50,000/- in the international market. The two accused were apprehended along with the articles after observing formalities at the spot. On receipt of the FIR, Champhai Police Station Case No. 89/2022 under Section 21(c)/25/29 of the ND&PS Act was registered by the Officer-in-charge of the Champhai Police Station. After investigation and submission of the charge-sheet, Crl. Tr. No. 262/2022 Champhai PS Case No. 89/2022 commenced.

Seven PWs deposed for the prosecution, and 13 documents were exhibited by the prosecution. The defence did not lead evidence.

PW-1 knew the two accused persons, and he was the Seizing Officer in the instant case. He was the Officer-in-charge, Traffic Cell, Champhai at the time of seizure. On 13.07.2022, a silver-coloured Maruti 800 bearing registration No. MZ04-7383, driven by the accused Lalnuntluanga and the front seat occupied by co-accused Lalbeiseia, was stopped at around 03:00 P.M during routine checking of vehicles at Dawrkaikawn, Kahrawt Veng. A suspicious bag was found on the right side of the back seat of the said vehicle. On being informed, he prepared grounds of belief with his laptop and printed it out at the nearby printing store and then conducted a formal search of the bag. He himself opened the bag, and underneath the woven fabric of the bag, 22 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be Heroin were hidden. He seized the said items in the presence of two civilian witnesses. Weighing, repackaging and seizure were done. The seized articles weighed 271 grams in total. On the same day, he submitted a report of seizure and the FIR to the Officer-in-Charge, Champhai Police Station and handed over the case. None of his men conducted a search of the vehicle nor of the bag. One of his men merely knocked on the bag and, from the sound, they suspected that it contained soap cases. The accused Lalbeiseia confessed on the spot that he had obtained the seized articles for resale, and the other occupants, except the two accused, were unaware of the seized articles. As the accused Lalbeiseia himself stated before him that the other occupants other than his co-accused Lalnuntluanga had no involvement in the case, he set them at liberty.

In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that on 13.07.2022, one of his duty men (Traffic Police duty), namely Constable Vanlalruata, informed him that they had detained the seized vehicle for violation of mandatory documents under the Motor Vehicles Act. He denied the suggestion that the Police on traffic duty had already recovered the seized articles before he arrived on the spot. It is a fact that he could not recall whether he entered the names of the two accused on the Grounds of Belief or not. It is a fact that the seized article was kept on the back seat of the vehicle. It is a fact that weighment was done at the spot and the total weight was 271 grams. It is a fact that the SA was recovered in the presence of two civilian witnesses. It is a fact that he could not recall whether he recorded the statements of the accused persons as well as two civilian witnesses. He denied the suggestion that the accused Lalbeiseia had no involvement in the instant case, as he voluntarily confessed before him that he had transported the seized articles for resale and also informed him from where he had obtained the seized articles. It is not a fact that he is deposing falsely before the Court.

PW-2 is the brother of the appellant herein and the son of the deceased co-accused. During trial, he stated that the accused Lalbeiseia is his father and co-accused Lalnuntluanga is his younger brother. He stated that he stood before the Court in his capacity as a witness. On the date of the incident, i.e. 13.07.2022, he, along with the 2 (two) accused, went to Zote Village with the vehicle of the accused Lalnuntluanga. On arrival, he stepped down from the vehicle and went to the landed property of his elder brother Laltanpuia, while the 2 (two) accused, Lalnuntluanga and Lalbeiseia, proceeded towards Zote Tiau. After some hours, his father came back from Tiau, and they waited for the co-accused Lalnuntluanga at Zote Junction. After a while, the co-accused Lalnuntluanga came back inebriated. He drove the vehicle, and they proceeded back towards Champhai with the seized vehicle. On reaching Dawrkaikawn, they were halted by the Mobile Traffic Duties to inspect the vehicle documents. Surprisingly, from the back seat of the vehicle, the Police Personnel recovered 22 (twenty-two) soap cases of heroin which were hidden inside a bag. He stated that he had no involvement in the present case and the 2 (two) accused did not inform him about the seized articles.

In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated he was present during the search of the vehicle and the bag containing the seized articles. He agreed to the suggestion that the Traffic Police Personnel in uniform took out the bag from the vehicle and opened it, and he found that the bag contained the seized articles. He did not know the name of the Traffic Police Personnel who took out the seized articles. He knew Sub Inspector M. Hunter Hnamte from the incident. He agreed with the suggestion that S.I M. Hunter Hnamte, who is the Seizing Officer in the present case, was not the person who took out the seized articles from the vehicle. He agreed with the suggestion that there was no civilian witness at the relevant time while searching the vehicle. It is a fact that he did not witness the weighing, and he did not know whether the weight was taken at the place of occurrence, but the weight was not taken in his sight. He is of the belief that, after recovery was made from the seized vehicle, the traffic Police on duty called the Seizing Officer. It is a fact that he knows K.L Zairemmawia and K. Lalhlimpuia, who were listed as witnesses. Both of them arrived at the place of occurrence after recovery was done by the traffic duty.

PW-3 stated that he knows the two accused persons and that he is a shopkeeper by profession and he held the post of President (Kahrawt Veng Branch YMA) during that time. On 13.07.2022, while he and his friend K Lalhlimpuia, Secretary (Kahrawt Veng Branch YMA), were at his store, a Police party came to his store and requested him to act as a witness. They followed them, and at Dawrkaikawn, Kahrawt Veng, the Police party conducted a check on a Maruti 800 make vehicle bearing registration No. MZ 04 – 7383 and recovered and seized 22 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin, weighing 271 grams in total, which was concealed in a dark blue colour bag, kept inside the back seat of the said vehicle, from the possession of Lalbeiseia S/o Darzinga(L) and Lalnuntluanga S/o Lalbeiseia, both from Vengsang, Champhai, in his presence, and he gave his signature. Exhibit P3(b) is his signature on the Seizure Memo, and Exhibit P4(b) is his signature on Grounds of Belief.

In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that it is a fact that he does not remember the Police Personnel who called him as a witness. It is a fact that he was not present at the time when the said vehicle was stopped by the traffic police on duty on that particular day. It is a fact that the seized articles were kept in a shop when he reached the place of occurrence. It is a fact that the seized articles were concealed in an old bag (Air bag type), and he did not remember the color of the bag. It is a fact that the bag was opened by the Police Party in his presence. It is a fact that the seizing party took weightment on the spot, i, e., inside the shop. He stated that he is not aware of whether the seized articles were taken out by the Seizing Officer himself or not from the said vehicle. He does not remember the exact weight of the seized articles. He does not know whether the Police Party recorded his statement or not. In fact, he did not give his signature on his statement. It is also a fact that he affixed his signature on the Grounds of Belief and Seizure Memo inside the said shop. He is not aware whether the Traffic Mobile party conducted a search upon the seized vehicle and called for S.I M. Hunter Hnamte after knowing that it contained contraband articles. It is a fact that one of the persons on Traffic Mobile Duty told him that they thought that the seized article was liquor, but by taking it out, they later came to know that it was not liquor. It is a fact that he remembers the date of occurrence. He stated that as far as he had seen, the accused persons never claimed ownership of the seized article before the Police or anyone on that particular day. It is a fact that this is the first time he has ever acted as a witness.

PW-4, a seizure witness, stated that he knows the two accused persons. On 13.07.2022, while he and his friend KL Zairemmawia (President Kahrawt Veng Branch YMA) were at his store, the Police Party came and requested them to act as witnesses. They followed them to Dawrkaikawn, Kahrawt Veng. The Police Party conducted a check of a Maruti 800 vehicle bearing registration No. MZ 04-7383 and recovered and seized 22 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be Heroin, with a total weight of 271 grams, which was concealed in a Dark blue bag, kept inside the back seat of the said vehicle, from the possession of Lalbeiseia S/o Darzinga (L) and Lalnuntluanga S/o Lalbeiseia, both from Vengsang, Champhai, in his presence, and he gave his signature. By the time they arrived at the place of occurrence, all the seized articles were kept on the rear seat, and the seizing team took out the seized articles from the vehicle in his presence. Thereafter, the seized articles were taken inside Pu Ramzaua's store, and they assisted the Seizing Officer while conducting weighment. Exhibit P3(c) is his signature on the Seizure Memo, while Exhibit P4(c) is his signature on Grounds of Belief.

During his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he was requested to act as a witness by S.I M. Hunter Hnamte, who is the Seizing Officer in the present case. When he reached the place of occurrence, all the seized articles were kept on the rear seat of the vehicle, which was parked near Dawrkaikawn Auto-Rickshaw Stand. He and his co-witness departed from K.L Zairemmawia's store and arrived at the place of occurrence at the same time. It is a fact that one of the Police Personnel took out the seized article from the said car, but he does not know the name of the said Police Personnel. It is a fact that the seized articles were taken inside Pu Ramzaua's store, and weighing was done in his presence; the seized articles were inside 22 soap cases, and the total weight was 271 grams. It is a fact that the seized articles were kept inside a rucksack. The seized soap cases were not the same colour. Some are red in colour, and some are green in colour. The seized articles were taken out from the said vehicle by some other Police Personnel, not the Seizing Officer himself. He does not know if his statement was taken and that he was also not informed of anything about his statement being recorded. It is a fact that the vehicle in which the seized articles were recovered was a Maruti 800, but he cannot recall the registration number of the said vehicle. He also stated that he cannot recall where the two accused were detained when he reached the place of occurrence. It is not a fact that he is deposing falsely before the Court.

PW-7, who was the Investigating Officer, stated that he knew the two accused persons. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant, SI M. Hunter Hnamte, who stated before him that on 13.07.2022, Traffic Cell Champhai conducted mobile vehicle checking at Dawrkaikawn, Champhai and stopped one car (Maruti 800-Silver Colour) bearing registration No. MZ04 - 7383 and recovered and seized 22 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin, weighing 271 grams, from the illegal possession of the occupants of the vehicle, Lalbeiseia S/o Darzinga (L) R/o Vengsang, Champhai and Lalnuntluanga S/o Lalbeiseia R/o Vengsang, Champhai. The seized articles were kept inside the backseat of the said car, concealed in one bag. The seizure witnesses K.L Zairemmawia and K. Lalhlimpuia also stated that they had witnessed the whole process of recovery and seizure. He also examined the accused person Lalnuntluanga, who admitted his guilt before him that he and his father, i.e., accused No. 2 Lalbeiseia, collected and transported the said contraband articles from Tiau on the morning of 13.07.2022. The other accused, Lalbeiseia, also admitted his guilt before him by stating that on the morning of 13.07.2022, he and his son, i.e. accused No. 1 Lalnuntluanga, left Vengsang for Zokhawthar to collect Heroin. One of his sons, Zonunsanga, also went along with them but left at Zote for his work. When they reached Tiau, one Khena of Bukphir, Myanmar, delivered to him 22 soap cases of Heroin at the rate of Rs. 8,000/-per soap case on credit to sell it at Aizawl for Rs. 15,000/- per soap case. He also stated that some time before the current incident, he had been involved in this type of case by collecting heroin from Khupsamseia of Bukphir, Myanmar at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per soap case and delivered to Kolasib and Bairabi at a better rate of Rs. 18,000/- per soap case. In this instant case, after he received 22 soap cases of Heroin from Khena of Bukphir, Myanmar, he concealed the contraband articles inside his bag and kept the bag at the backseat of their vehicle. He boarded another vehicle from Tiau to Zote and waited for his son, i.e., accused No. 1 Lalnuntluanga, at Zote, who went to drink liquor at Bulfek, Myanmar. When his son Lalnuntluanga returned, he got drunk and was not able to drive, so his other son Zonunsanga drove the vehicle from Zote. While the three of them were together proceeding towards their home, i.e. Vengsang, Champhai, they were apprehended at Dawrkaikawn, Champhai. He arrested the two accused persons on 13.07.2022 at Champhai Police Station after observing formalities. Inventory, photographs, and Samples of seized articles were taken in the presence of the Magistrate on 14.07.2022. FSL Report was received, and the expert who examined the exhibits opined that they were analyzed by various scientific methods and were found to be Heroin with a purity of about 80% w/w at the time of examination. Hence, he found a prima facie case u/s 21(C)/25/29 of ND&PS Act against the two accused, and I sent them to face their trial.

In his cross-examination, PW-7 stated that samples less than 5 grams were drawn from each soap case. It is a fact that the Seizing Officer had recorded statements of the Seizure Witnesses, and he did not record statements of the Seizure Witnesses. He does not know who actually took out the seized articles, as he was not present during the process of seizure, and he did not visit the place of occurrence. He does not know whether the seized articles were weighed at the place of occurrence or not, but he knows for a fact that they have a total weight. He knows that the seized vehicle belongs to the accused persons, but he does not know in whose name it was registered. It is a fact that the vehicle was driven by Zonunsanga on their way back from Zote. He does not know whether the Seizing Officer had written down Grounds of Belief or not. He later recalled that he had actually written down Grounds of Belief. The content for forwarding of SA for examination report was prepared on 14.07.2022, and it was dispatched directly from their station to FSL, Aizawl. He had prepared the contents for forwarding the SA for an examination report. Forwarding was done after the Superintendent of Police verified it. He does not know whether the two accused persons had a previous criminal record, but accused No. 2 told him that he used to be involved in the same nature of offence. He does not have any comment regarding whether grounds of belief were recorded before or after recovery was made by Traffic duties. It is not a fact that he is deposing falsely before the Court.

In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had admitted that the recovered goods were sent to them by a Burmese national and they did not know what it was. They had only transported it.

After hearing arguments for both the contesting parties, the impugned judgment was delivered.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had made lengthy arguments regarding the violation of different provisions of the ND&PS Act, alleged to have been committed during the seizure and investigation, to argue that the appellant deserved an acquittal. The learned counsel had also assailed the conclusions of the learned single in arriving at a finding of guilt of the appellant and had pressed for the impugned order to be set aside, and for the appellant to be declared to be innocent and to be set at liberty. The learned APP had, with equal force, argued that all legal procedures had been duly followed during the investigation as well as during the trial and had accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal. I have duly considered the arguments advanced, and I have also perused the records as available in the paper book.

During the trial proceedings, the stand of the prosecution that the contraband articles had been recovered from a bag inside the vehicle driven by the brother of the appellant had not been controverted by the defence. I find that the Learned Trial Court did not commit any error in concluding that the recovery of 22 soap cases containing suspected heroin had indeed been made from the possession of the appellant and his father, who has since met his demise. The convicts could not rebut the presumption of conscious possession sufficiently. In the statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, they had admitted to possession of the seized articles.

This Court has also noticed that the report of the Forensic analysis of the samples sent for such examination revealed that each of the samples, labelled as CHE (CPI)-298(1) to CHE(CPI)-298(22), was heroin, the purity of each about 80% w/w at the time of examination. The learned Trial Court has observed that the defence did not dispute the authenticity of the FSL Report as reflected in the order dated 17.7.2023.

The learned Trial Court, in its judgment, had accepted the inventory, photographs and list of samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as primary evidence in accordance with law under Section 52A (4) of the ND&PS Act. This Court does not find any infirmity in the same.

This Court cannot, however, overlook the obvious shortcomings in the inventory prepared under the provisions of Section 52A of the ND&PS Act, which have serious ramifications in the finding of guilt of the appellant herein for having committed offences under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act.

Standing Order No.1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued under subsection (1) of Section 52A of NDPS Act by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Section (II) of the said Order of 1989 provides for the general procedure for sampling, storage and reads as under:-

The prosecution and their witnesses have consistently stated that 22 soap cases with the suspected heroin, packed in polythene bags, had been seized with a total weight of 271 grams. The inventory prepared and certified by the Magistrate does not fulfil the requirements of law. There is no indication in the inventory regarding the weight of the soapcases, either taken individually or cumulatively, and there is no indication of the weight of the suspected contraband/heroin contained in the soapcases. The inventory which was certified by the magistrate is extracted below for ease of reference:

In such circumstances, the total quantity of heroin seized from the soap cases in the possession of the appellant becomes incapable of determination. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that commercial quantity of heroin had been recovered from the appellant herein and that the learned Trial Court had also committed a serious error in convicting the appellant of committing offence under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act.

The only available quantification of the contraband seized from the accused is found in the FSL Report, which was not disputed by either of the parties. I have gone through the report, and the total quantity of contraband sent for sampling comes to 1367 mgs, which translates to 1.37 grams of heroin of 80 % w/w purity. The samples drawn and certified were admittedly below the requisite 5 grams as required by Standing Order 1/89 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau.

The issue with regard to defect in sampling was dealt with by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Gaunter Edwin Kircher Vs State of Goa, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 145 while dealing with a case of conviction under Section 20(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act. The appellant in the said case was found in possession of 2 pieces of charas that were weighing 7 and 5 gms respectively. Out of the 2 pieces, one piece of 5 gms was sent for chemical analysis; however, the piece weighing 7 gms was neither sent nor was a sample thereof taken and sent for chemical analysis. In the absence of positive proof that both the pieces recovered from the accused contained Charas only, it was held that it would not be safe to hold that 12 gms of Charas were recovered from the accused. In view of the evidence of PWI, it was held that the prosecution has proved positively that Charas weighing about 4.570 gms was recovered from the accused. The failure to send the other piece had given rise to this inference.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. Bal Mukund & Ors., reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161, while considering an appeal against a judgment of acquittal, observed as under:

In Khet Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 380, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the context of similar instructions issued (Standing Order 1/88) by the NCB, New Delhi, held that the same were to be followed by the Officer-in-charge of the investigation of crimes falling within the purview of the NDPS Act. The Court held that even though the said instructions did not have the force of law, they were intended to guide the officers to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted in the investigation.

In view of the above, and further in view of the facts which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act deserves an interference and accordingly the conviction is interfered with and converted to a conviction under Section 21(a) of the The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. The sentence to be awarded to the appellant under the said provision is restricted to a maximum of one year, or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. In the present case, the TCR reveals that the appellant had spent 281 days in custody during investigation and trial and has also been carrying out the sentence since 14.11.2023. Therefore, he has already carried out the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon him. In such circumstances, the appellant is no longer required to be detained in custody.

Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/appellant Sh. Lalnuntluanga is converted to one under Section 21(a) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and keeping in view the fact that he has undergone more than the maximum sentence that could have been imposed upon him due to such conviction, he is deemed to have served the sentence.

Accordingly, he shall now be released from custody forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.

The ld. Amicus shall be paid his fees as per norms.

Registry to return the records of the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order.