Page No.# 1/31 GAHC030002302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/17/2025 Sh. Lalthakima S/o Vanlalhmuaka (L) R/o Nursery Veng, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Advocate for the appellant : Mr. C. Lalfakzuala Advocate for the respondent : Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. P.P., Mizoram Date on which judgment was reserved: 30.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been : YES pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER[CAV] Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. Page No.# 2/31 2. The present jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2025 and the order on sentence dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Aizawl, Mizoram, in Sessions Registration No. 91/2022, arising out of Excise Case No. 16/2022, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for contravention of Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 10 months. 3. The appeal has been preferred through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Aizawl. Since the appellant was in custody and unable to afford to engage a counsel of his own choice, learned amicus curiae was appointed to represent him. 4. I have heard the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Mizoram. I have carefully examined the Paper Book and the original trial Court record. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.02.2022, at about 12 noon, PW-1, namely, Mr. C. Lalbiaktluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics, attached to the anti-narcotics squad, Excise and Narcotics Department, Aizawl, received reliable secret information that one drugs peddler was intending to sale Cough Syrup(Codip-T) containing Codeine at New Capital Complex, Aizawl. 6. The said information was immediately reduced into writing in the Page No.# 3/31 prescribed information report and submitted to the Officer-in-Charge, Anti- Narcotics Squad, Excise and Narcotics Department, Aizawl. The said information disclosed that a person was likely to sale Cough Syrup(Codip-T) containing Codeine at the said place. 7. After recording the information, the PW-1 along with his raiding party, proceeded to the reported place where at about 12:45 pm, the accused/ appellant Lalthakima was intercepted. Upon such interception, a search was made. On search, a red colour rucksack bag was found carried by the accused Lalthakima. On search of the said bag carried by the accused, 39 phials of Codip-T Cough Syrup was found. Each Cough Syrup(Codip-T) was containing approximately 100ml weight of 3.9 kgs. of Cough Syrup were allegedly recovered. 8. The prosecution case is that the seizure was effected in the presence of independent civilian witnesses. The seizure articles were packed, sealed and marked on the spot. Thereafter, a seizure memo and arrest memo was simultaneously prepared on the spot and the appellant was arrested. 9. The further case of the prosecution is that, during preliminary interrogation, which was done immediately after the seizure was made; the appellant disclosed that he had procured the Cough Syrup(Codip-T) from a Medical Store situated at Armed Veng South, Aizawl. Based on and acting upon such disclosure of the accused/appellant, the raiding team proceeded to the residence-cum-Medical Store of one Hmingthanvuta(co-accused) where another search was conducted. During the said search in the house of accused Hmingthanvuta, 46 phials of Cough Syrup(Codip-T) weighing 4.6 Kgs. were recovered and seized from a Cupboard inside his premises. Page No.# 4/31 Thereafter, the accused Hmingthanvuta was also arrested. 10. Upon completion of seizure proceedings, PW-1 submitted the seizure and arrest report to the Officer-in-charge, Anti-Narcotics Squad, Excise and Narcotics Department, Aizawl. Upon receipt of the said report, an excise Case being Exn.16/2022 under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, came to be registered. 11. After registration, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-8, namely, Mr. Benjamin Lalruattluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics. During investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and both the accused persons were also interrogated. The investigating officer also approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, for certification of the inventory under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accordingly, on 17.02.2022, the inventory of the seized articles was prepared before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The inventory described the first seizure of the present appellant(S-I) consisting of 39 phials, kept in a red colour rucksack bag. The second seizure of Hmingthanvuta (co-accused) was marked as (S-II) consisting of 46 phials, kept in a red and black polythene bag. 12. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class compared the inventory with the seized articles produced before her and satisfied that the inventory is as per the seizure documents and the consignment of the seized articles to her and therefore, certified the correctness of the inventory under Section 52A(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 13. Thereafter, 5(five) phials from each seizure, were drawn as Page No.# 5/31 representative samples before the learned Magistrate in terms of Section 52A(2)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The duplicate and representative samples were prepared and sealed for sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 14. Further, 7(seven) Nos. of photographs of the seized articles were also taken in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and duly certified by her. The samples were, thereafter, forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 25.02.2022, recorded that both samples exhibits tested positive for Codeine. 15. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against both accused persons for commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Charge under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was framed separately on 23.06.2022. 16. The charge alleged that the appellant was found in conscious possession of 3.9 kgs. of Cough Syrup containing Codeine phosphate kept in 39 phials at the roadside of New Capital Complex, Khatla, Aizawl, and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in violation of the provisions of Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 17. It is significant to note that, while the charge was read-over and explained, the appellant voluntarily pleaded guilty to the extent of having Page No.# 6/31 possession. The appellant stated in Mizo vernacular. His statement recorded by the learned trial Court, translated in English, reads as under: “On 16.02.2022, I collected 49 bottles of Codeine(Codip-T) from one Kimi at Tuikual. I had already sold 10 bottles to customers and while carrying the remaining 39 bottles at New Capital Complex, I was apprehended by the Excise personnel.” 18. The translation of the admission of guilt by the appellant shows that he had received 49 phials of Codip-T; he had already sold 10 phials out of 49; and the remaining 39 phials were still in his possession when Excise officials apprehended him. 19. Thus, even at the stage of framing of charge, the appellant had voluntarily admitted that he was carrying 49 bottles and he had already sold 10 bottles. 20. Although the appellant made the above statement which is amounting to an admission of possession and sale, the learned Special Judge, did not proceed to convict him solely on the basis of such plea. Instead, the learned Special Judge directed a full-fledged trial to ensure that the prosecution independently established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the learned Court afforded a greater safeguard to the appellant than what the law strictly required. 21. Here, it is to be noted that though subsequently, the trial proceeded on evidence before the learned trial Court, such admission forms an important circumstance corroborating the prosecution case. 22. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses. Page No.# 7/31 23. PW-1, namely, Mr. C. Lalbiaktluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics, is the Officer who seized the articles. He fully supported the prosecution case regarding receipt of prior information, recording of the information, seizure of the articles, arrest of the accused persons, packing and sealing of the articles, preparation of seizure memo and subsequent recovery from the co-accused. However, nothing substantial emerged in his cross- examination except clarification that the weight mentioned represented conversion of the liquid contents of Cough Syrup i.e. 100 ml into 100 grams. 24. PW-2, namely, Mr. Malsawmtluanga, and PW-3, namely, Mr. Christopher Hmingthanzuala, are independent witnesses, who accompanied the appellant immediately before his arrest. Both the witnesses consistently stated that the appellant was carrying the bag from which 39 bottles of Cough Syrup were recovered. 25. Though PW-3, namely, Mr. Christopher Hmingthanzuala, admitted that he himself had earlier been apprehended with Cough Syrup, however, he was not prosecuted, that, by itself, does not render his testimony inadmissible as contended by the appellant. At best, it requires careful scrutiny of the witness. His evidence regarding recovery and seizure of 39 phials of Cough Syrup(Codip-T) containing Codeine from the appellant stands corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 viz. Mr. C. Lalbiaktluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics, and PW-2 viz. Mr. Malsawmtluanga. 26. PW-4 viz. Mr. R. Lalawmpuia, partly turned hostile. However, he admitted recovery and seizure of 46 phials of medicine from the residence of co-accused and identified his signature on the seizure memo. Page No.# 8/31 27. PW-5, namely, Mr. John Lallawmtluanga, corroborated the search conducted at the residence of the co-accused and recovery and seizure of 46 phials of Cough Syrup(Codip-T) from the cupboard. 28. PW-6 viz. Ms. Julie Lalhlupuii, is the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. She proved compliance with Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by certifying the inventory, supervising, drawing of samples and photography. She also confirmed the quantity as 3.9 kgs. of Cough Syrup(Codip-T) containing Codeine phosphate in 39 phials from the appellant. The mode of packing of 39 phials as Sample-I/S- I in red colour rucksack bag from the present appellant. 29. PW-7, namely, Mr. Lalmuanawma, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, is the Scientific Officer. He categorically proved that both Exhibits contained Codeine. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the exact amount of Codeine contained in the samples. 30. PW-8 viz. Mr. Benjamin Lalruattluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics, is the Investigating Officer. He proved the investigation, inventory proceedings, Forensic Science Laboratory report and complaint and stated that samples of 5 phials each i.e. 500 grams each of codip-T (S- I and S-II) containing Codeine phosphate, was drawn out from the seized articles before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 31. The prosecution has also exhibited several documentary exhibits including:- (i). information report[Ext.P/1]; (ii). Seizure and arrest memo[Ext.P/2 and Ext.P/2A]; Page No.# 9/31 (iii).Report of seizure and arrest[Ext.P/3]; (iv).Application under Section 52A[Ext. p/4]; (v).Inventory certified by the Magistrate [Ext. P/5]; (vi).List of samples drawn[Ext.P/6]; (vii).Inventory photographs[Ext.P/7]; (viii).Forensic Science Laboratory report [Ext.P/8]; and (ix).Complaint Sheet[Ext.P/9]. 32. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the trial co-accused Hmingthangvuta unfortunately expired on 05.08.2023. As a result of his demise, the proceeding against him, stood abated. Consequently, the trial proceeding, thereafter, continued only against the present appellant. 33. After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 34. In answer to the principal incriminating circumstances regarding recovery of 39 phials from his possession, the appellant did not deny the recovery. Instead, he stated; “it is correct that I was arrested for possession of 39 Cough Syrup but there was no witness present.” 35. Thus, possession of the seized articles was expressly admitted by the appellant. His explanation, however, was that the Cough Syrup seized from him, belonged to one Kimi who requested him merely to deliver the same and that he was unaware that it was illegal. He also denied knowing one Mr. Christopher Hmingthanzuala or Malsawmtluanga and denied having sold Cough Syrup. This explanation does not inspire confidence. Firstly, the appellant had earlier admitted at the time of framing charge stating that he Page No.# 10/31 had received 49 bottles out of which, he had already sold 10 bottles and he was carrying the remaining 39 bottles. Secondly, during investigation, he admitted illegal possession and sale. Thirdly, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced in defence to establish the existence of one “Kimi” or that he was merely an innocent carrier on the request of “Kimi”. His explanation is therefore an afterthought and is liable to be rejected. 36. Further, the evidentiary value and legal effect of the appellant’s voluntary admission at the stage of framing of charge as well as the admission made by him, during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, constitute one of the principal questions arising in the present appeal. However, they shall be considered in detail at the appropriate stage. 37. Consequently, after conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. 38. Being aggrieved, the appellant assailed the judgment of conviction, both in his jail appeal and through the learned amicus curiae, inter alia, on the following grounds: (i). That the prosecution case is fabricated; (ii). That the Cough Syrup seized by the police belonged to one “Kimi” and not to the appellant; (iii). That “Kimi” being the real owner, was never prosecuted; (iv). That the deceased/co-accused was the actual owner of another batch of Cough Syrup and that the appellant has been made the scapegoat; Page No.# 11/31 (v). That the exact percentage of Codeine was never established by the Forensic Science Laboratory; (vi). That only representative samples were tested and all the alleged seized articles were not tested; (vii). That PW-3/Mr. Christopher Hmingthanzuala, was illegally let-off and made a prosecution witness only in the present case; (viii).That both recoveries ought to have been registered separately; (ix).That mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were violated; and (x). That the conviction is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 39. Besides the above, the learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant, made the following submissions: (i). Learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of conviction primarily on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized articles. He further submits that the mandatory safeguards under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have not been properly complied with. It is contended that Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been violated during investigation of the case as the Seizing Officer has not stated the exact time when the seized articles were handed over to the officer-in-charge of the Anti-Narcotics Squad. (ii). According to the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, in the absence of such evidence, the sanctity of the seized articles becomes doubtful. Page No.# 12/31 (iii). It is further submitted that although the prosecution case is that the 39 phials were alleged to have been recovered from the red colour rucksack bag, however, the said bag was never produced or exhibited before the learned trial Court. According to the appellant, the non-production of the said bag creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. (iv). The learned amicus curiae further argues that there is no exhibited godown receipt evidencing deposit of the seized articles in the malkhana/godown. Although the learned trial Court referred to the deposit of the seized articles, the documents itself was never proved during trial. It is, therefore, argued that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the seized articles. (v). It is the further contention of the learned amicus curiae for the appellant that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 53(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Rule 5(2) and 5(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances(seizure, storage, sampling and disposal) Rules, 2022, were not complied with. (vi). It is further submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report merely states that the exhibits contained Codeine but nowhere, mentions the scientific name, viz. methyl morphine. According to the learned amicus curiae, the prosecution has failed to prove the seized substance properly explains the description of the notified narcotics drugs. Page No.# 13/31 (vii).The learned amicus curiae for the appellant also pointed- out some discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. He submits that PW-6, Ms. Julie Lalhlupuii, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, deposed that 6(six) photographs were taken whereas the prosecution produced 7(seven) photographs. Likewise, PW-6 stated that 3(three) samples were drawn from 2 phials whereas the documentary evidence shows that 5 phials each were drawn from S-I and S-II. Such contradiction according to the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, strikes at the very root of the prosecution case. (viii). The learned amicus curiae also argued that while the inventory and the prosecution witness described the seized Cough Syrup as “Codip-T", the Forensic Science Laboratory report refers to cofftrip, thereby, creating doubt regarding the identity of the sample examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. (ix). Lastly, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant submitted that the appellant has remained incarcerated for more than 3(three) years and in view of the serious infirmities in the prosecution case, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. (x). In support of his above submissions, the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, has relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: (i). Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P.[Criminal Appeal No.(s) 1143 of 2019, particularly, paragraph Nos. 5 & 8; Page No.# 14/31 (ii). Mohammed Khalid & anr. v. State of Telangana, reported in (2024) 5 SCC 393, particularly, paragraph No. 24; (iii). Bharat Aambale v. State of Chattisgarh, reported in (2025) 8 SCC 452, particularly, paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 23, 47, 56.8; and (iv). Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 549, paragraph No. 14. 40. Per contra, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P., Mizoram, supports the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has established every foundational fact beyond reasonable doubt. 41. It is submitted that although the red colour rucksack bag was not formally exhibited during trial, the seizure memo specifically records its recovery and the learned trial Court has taken note of the same. She has submitted that the red colour rucksack bag itself is not the contraband article but it is merely the container in which the contraband was carried by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant himself admitted both at the stage of framing of charge and in his statement during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, that he was found by the squad carrying the 39 phials in the bag. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused only on the ground that the bag has not been exhibited. 42. With regard to the godown receipt, it is submitted that the receipt dated 16.02.2022 forms part of the trial Court records though it was inadvertently not exhibited. It is further submitted that mere non-marking of the document does not by itself establish that the seized articles were not deposited or that the chain of custody has broken. In this regard, Page No.# 15/31 reliance is placed upon the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Aambale v. State of Chattisgarh(supra), more particularly, paragraph Nos. 24, 29, 33, 34.1, 38, 40, 50.1 and 56.9. 43. It is further submitted that “Codip-T" is merely the commercial brand name of the pharmaceutical preparation whereas Codeine(methyl morphine) is its scientific nomenclature. Therefore, according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, the Forensic Science Laboratory report recording the presence of Codeine sufficiently establishes the nature of the seized contraband. 44. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, argued that the discrepancy between “Codip-T" and “Cofftrip” in the Forensic Science Laboratory report is nothing more than a typographical error, particularly, when the sample markings, seals, and case number in the report completely tally with the inventory and the forwarding memo. She further submits that the word Cofftrip is mentioned in respect of the articles seized from the co-accused and it is not of the present appellant. 45. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, further explains that in respect of the present appellant, the seized articles were drawn as per Section 52A(2)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and marked as S-I comprising 39 phials kept in the red colour rucksack bag. From S-I, 5(five) phials of 500 grams of Codip-T containing Codeine, were drawn as representative samples and marked as “END(ANS)B-I(A)17/2/22”, which alone were forwarded for the chemical examination in respect of the appellant. It is submitted that under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, only the Page No.# 16/31 representative samples are required to be analyzed and not every individual bottles. 46. It is argued by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, that the inventory prepared before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, the photographs and the list of samples, fully corroborate the testimony of the Investigating Officer. She further submitted that the minor discrepancy in the deposition of PW-6 viz. Ms. Julie Lalhlupuii regarding the number of photographs or the description of samples, could be due to lapse of memory and it does not affect the substantive documentary evidence duly prepared by the competent authority. 47. In support of the above submissions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Paulamchin v. State of Mizoram & anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 522, more particularly, paragraph No. 20, wherein, it has been held that minor inconsistencies regarding the procedure adopted by the Magistrate would not vitiate the proceedings once the evidence establishes that the inventory and samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. 48. It is further submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the foundational fact, namely; conscious possession of the articles by the appellant, seizure of the articles from him, safe custody of the articles, preparation of the inventory, drawing of representative samples before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and positive Forensic Science Laboratory report. Consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Page No.# 17/31 according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, stood attracted. Thus, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant has failed to discharge the reverse burden. 49. In support of her submissions in this regard, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, placed reliance upon the case of Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 608, more particularly, paragraph Nos. 12 & 13, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the initial burden of proof of possession lies on the prosecution and once it is discharged, legal burden would shift on the accused to satisfactorily explain for such possession. 50. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, further submitted that the appellant had made voluntary admission at the time of framing of charge, wherein, he admitted having received 49 phials, and out of the 49 phials, he had sold 10 phials and remaining 39 phials was in his possession. The appellant had also admitted during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and stated that he was arrested while possessing the 39 phials. This, according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, clearly establishes the conscious possession of the seized articles by the appellant. Further, his subsequent explanation that the seized articles belonged to one “Kimi” is unsupported by any evidence and therefore, the same is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. 51. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the findings recorded by Page No.# 18/31 the learned Special Court, according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, suffer from no perversity or illegality and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 52. Based on the materials placed and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful examination of the entire records, the following issues have emerged for determination: (i). Whether recovery of 39 phials of Codeine Cough Syrup (Codip-T) from the possession of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt? (ii). Whether there is any non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, affecting the prosecution case? (iii). Whether the conviction under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is sustainable? and, (iv). Whether the sentence requires interference? 53. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram. 54. “(i). Whether recovery of 39 phials of Codeine Cough Syrup (Codip-T) from the possession of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt?” 54.1. The entire prosecution case originates from the information received by the PW-1, Mr. C. Lalbiaktluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics, on 16.02.2022, at about 12:00 noon, that a drugs peddler intended to sale Page No.# 19/31 illicit Cough Syrup at New Capital Complex, Aizawl. The information was immediately reduced into writing[Ext.P/1], and the raiding party proceeded to the place of occurrence. 54.2. The PW-1 deposed that at about 12:45 pm, the appellant was intercepted and found carrying a red colour rucksack bag containing 39 phials of Codeine Cough Syrup weighing 3.9 kgs. The seizure and arrest were effected in the presence of the independent witnesses and seizure memo [Ext.P/2 as well as arrest memo [Ext.P/2A] were prepared at the spot. However, nothing substantial could be elicited in the cross- examination to discredit the testimony of the PW-1 except that the weight of the syrup was arrived at by converting 100ml into 100 grams. 54.3. The evidence of PW-1 finds material corroboration from the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. Both PW-2 and PW-3 witnessed the interception of the appellant at New Capital Complex, Aizawl, and they are consistent in their statement that the Excise officials recovered 39 phials of Cough Syrup from the bag carried by the appellant. 54.4. Though PW-2 admitted that he did not personally count the bottles and the PW-3 admitted that no case was registered against him despite earlier recovery of Cough Syrup from his possession, these admissions, however, does not demolish the core prosecution case regarding seizure of the articles from the appellant. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 remains consistent regarding recovery of the seized articles from the appellant. 54.5. Furthermore, the appellant himself substantially corroborated the prosecution case at the stage of framing of charge. After the charge was read-over and explained, the appellant voluntarily stated that he had Page No.# 20/31 received 49 phials of Codeine Cough Syrup from one “Kimi” at Taikaul; that he had already sold 10 phials before his apprehension by the Excise Officials. Furthermore, the appellant stated that he was found by the Excise Officials while carrying the remaining 39 phials at New Capital Complex, Aizawl. This admission was recorded by the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charge. 54.6. Even during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, while denying certain allegations made by the prosecution witnesses in their deposition, the appellant expressly admitted that he had been arrested for possession of 39 phials of Cough Syrup(Codip-T). His only explanation during the recording of Section 313 statement was that there was no witness present and that the Cough Syrup(Codip-T) belonged to one “Kimi” who had requested him to deliver the same. 54.7. Such explanation does not amount to denial of possession. Rather, it constitute an admission of possession coupled with an explanation regarding ownership. The appellant, however, did not examine “Kimi” or any other defence witness to prove his explanation. Mere assertion during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without supporting evidence cannot rebut the prosecution evidence. 54.8. The learned amicus curiae for the appellant argued that the red colour rucksack bag was never exhibited before the learned trial Court and therefore, the recovery itself becomes doubtful. However, this Court is unable to accept the said submission. The bag itself was not the contraband article but merely the container in which the contraband was carried by the Page No.# 21/31 appellant. The seizure specifically describes the red colour rucksack bag; the inventory prepared under Section 52A records S-I as consisting of 39 phials kept in a red colour rucksack bag; the photographs taken before the Magistrate also clearly demonstrates the seizure articles; and above all, the appellant himself admitted carrying the bag containing the Cough Syrup (Codip-T). Therefore, non-marking of the said bag as a material exhibit has not caused any prejudice nor it has created any reasonable doubt regarding recovery of the article, in question. 54.9. Likewise, the contention that the PW-2 and PW-3 were interested witnesses because Mr. Christopher Hmingthanzuala(PW-3) was not prosecuted, also deserves to be rejected. The non-prosecution of the PW-3 may, at best, be an irregularity in investigation. It, however, does not erase otherwise reliable evidence proving recovery of the articles from the appellant as this has received corroboration from other witnesses. It is settled that defect in investigation, does not by themselves result in acquittal unless prejudice is shown. 54.10. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 39 phials of Codeine Cough Syrup were recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. 54.11. Accordingly, the issue No. (i). is answered in the affirmative. 55. “(ii). Whether there is any non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, affecting the prosecution case?” Page No.# 22/31 55.1. This issue constitutes the principal challenge in the appeal. The issue may be dealt with under the following headings: A. Alleged violation of Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: (i). The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-1 did not mention the exact time at which the seized articles were handed over to the Officer-in-charge, Anti-Narcotics Squad, Excise and Narcotics Department, Aizawl, and therefore, Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have been violated. (ii). The evidence shows that the PW-1 proved the Ext.P/3, namely, the report of seizure and arrest. This shows that immediately after seizure, the report was submitted to the Officer-in-charge, Anti- Narcotics Squad, Excise and Narcotics Department, Aizawl, on the same day. Further, PW-8 also deposed that the case was registered immediately after the receipt of the seizure report and that investigation of the case commenced thereafter. (iii). Thus, merely because the exact hour and minutes of deposit of the articles were not mentioned in the report, cannot by itself establish the breach of Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Further, no suggestion was put to any witness by defence side that the seized articles remained unattended or that there exists any possibility of tampering of the articles. In the absence of any material prejudice to the defence, the omission as alleged by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, cannot be treated as fatal. Page No.# 23/31 B. ALLEGED ABSENCE OF GODOWN RECEIPT: (i). The appellant has further contended that no godown receipt of the articles was exhibited by the prosecution. The learned Addl. P.P., Mizoram, while showing the copy of the report of the Excise and Narcotics Department Anti-Narcotics Squad from the record, clarified that the said godown receipt dated 16.02.2022 forms very much a part of the record although it was inadvertently not exhibited. (ii). This Court finds merit in the submissions of the prosecution. In the opinion of the Court, the inventory prepared under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; the sample list collected therefrom; the forwarding memo of the Forensic Science Laboratory report together form and establish a continuous chain of custody of the seized articles. (iii). Mere omission to exhibit the godown receipt due to lapse on the part of the prosecution, without any evidence of any tampering of the articles, is not fatal and cannot destroy the prosecution case. (iv). The principle explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Aambale v. State of Chattisgarh(supra), is that the omission in providing a formal document, is not by itself fatal where the chain of custody of the articles otherwise stands established by the primary evidence. Page No.# 24/31 C. COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 52A OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985: (i). The record clearly established that on 17.02.2022, the I.O. of the case approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Magistrate, upon consideration, has certified the correctness of the inventory; the photographs taken; and the representative samples drawn from the seized articles. Thus, PW-6 i.e. the Judicial Magistrate First Class, proved the Ext.P/5(inventory), Ext.P/6(Sample List), and Ext.P/7(photographs). (ii). The appellant has pointed-out that the Magistrate i.e. PW-6 deposed in her evidence that 6(six) photographs were taken whereas on record, 7(seven) photographs are available. As such, there is a discrepancy in the stands of the prosecution. Similarly, PW-6 has deposed that 3 samples were drawn from 2 phials whereas Ext.P/6 shows that 5 phials, each, were drawn from S-I and S-II. In this regard, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, State of Mizoram, has adequately explained in her submissions and this Court is also of the opinion that these are minor discrepancies attributable to lapse of memory while deposing before the Court nearly after 1(one) year of the occurrence. (iii). The documentary evidence prepared contemporaneously under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, carries greater evidentiary value than an imperfect collection of numbers by the witness as in the present case i.e. the Judicial Magistrate First Class. (iv). The prosecution has pointed-out that in so far as the present Page No.# 25/31 appellant is concerned, only S-I, namely, 39 phials of Codip-T Cough Syrup kept in the red colour rucksack bag, is relevant. Ext.P/6 specifically records that 5 representative samples were drawn from S-I and marked as END(ANS)B-1(a), which is precisely the sample received and analysed by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The reasoning given by this Court in the case of Paulamchin v. State of Mizoram & anr.(supra) fully supports the view that minor inconsistencies in the Magistrate’s re-collection do not invalidate the otherwise, duly certified inventory and sample. D. FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY REPORT: (i). The learned amicus curiae for the appellant submits that the Forensic Science Laboratory report merely mentions Codeine and does not mention methyl morphine. This argument of the appellant is devoid of merit. The clarification given by the learned Addl. P.P., Mizoram, that the methyl morphine is the scientific nomenclature of Codeine is found to be correct. Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory report expert clearly deposed that both exhibits contained Codeine. (ii). In view of the above, no further proof was required to establish the identity of the narcotics substance. Likewise, the discrepancy as pointed-out by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant between the word “Codip-T" and "COFFTRIP", the same does not affect the prosecution case as it was already clarified by the learned Addl. P.P., Mizoram, that the "Cofftrip" is in respect of the co-accused and not the articles recovered and seized from the Page No.# 26/31 possession of the appellant. (iii). The sample marking of the articles; forwarding memo; arrest of the accused and packing; inventory and Forensic Science Laboratory report correspondent with each other. The minor variation, if any, is evidently typographical and not substantive. E. SEARCH WARRANT: (i). The appellant also questioned the absence of a Search Warrant in respect of the recovery from the residence of the co-accused. However, the record shows that the present appellant was apprehended in a public place. (ii). The conviction of the appellant is founded upon the recovery made from his possession. Even assuming that there has been some procedural defect regarding the subsequent recovery from the co-accused, it does not affect the independent recovery from the appellant. Accordingly, none of the alleged irregularities as pointed-out by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, has occasioned prejudice or created any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. 55.2. The issue No. (ii) is, accordingly, answered against the appellant. 56. “(iii). Whether the conviction under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is sustainable?” 56.1. The prosecution has established the following foundational fact viz. Page No.# 27/31 conscious possession of the contraband by the appellant; lawful seizure by the Seizing Officer; preparation of inventory before and in presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class; representative sampling drawn in presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class; Forensic Science Laboratory confirmation of the articles to be Codeine. 56.2. Once the foundational fact stood proved, the statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, became operative. The principle laid down in the case of Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Punjab(supra) is fully attracted in the instant case. It is stated that once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily explain such possession. In the present case, the explanation given by the appellant that Cough Syrup belonged to one “Kimi” remained completely unsubstantiated by any material or any other evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted. 56.3. It is important to note that the appellant voluntarily admitted while pleading to the charge that he had received 49 phials out of which, he had already sold 10 phials and he had retained 39 phials of Codip-T Cough Syrup with him. This voluntary admission of the appellant coupled with his admission during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating that he was arrested while possessing the 39 phials substantially strengthened the prosecution case. 56.4. The authority relied upon by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant in this regard including Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P. (supra); Mohammed Khalid & anr. v. State of Telangana(supra); and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chattisgarh(supra); were rendered by the Hon'ble Page No.# 28/31 Supreme Court of India on materially different facts involving deficiency in proof and chain of custody. 56.5. In the present case, the inventory prepared before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class; the Magistrate certification; representative sampling collected; Forensic Science Laboratory report; and the appellant’s own admissions collectively established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Those decisions are, therefore, distinguishable from the present case in hand and thus, not applicable. 56.6. The argument of the learned amicus curiae for the appellant that although the Codeine contained bottles, should be considered for determining quantity of the articles, is also unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench’s decision in the case of Hira Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 272 which authoritatively holds that the entire mixture or preparation has to be considered for determining the quantity under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 56.7. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, does not suffers from any perversity or legal infirmity. 56.8. The issue No. (iii), is therefore answered in favour of the prosecution. 57. “(iv). Whether the sentence requires interference?” 57.1. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default Page No.# 29/31 of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 10 months under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 57.2. The sentence imposed by the appellant is the minimum prescribed by law. It is found that no mitigating circumstances has also been shown which would legally permit reduction below the statutory minimum sentenced imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court. 57.3. The fact that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 3(three) years as submitted by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant, is merely a consequence of the conviction and cannot justify reduction of sentence which is statutorily mandated. 57.4. Accordingly, the issue No. (iv) is answered against the appellant. 58. From the above discussions, the following circumstances stand firmly established against the appellant: (i). Recovery of 39 phials from the conscious possession of the appellant; (ii). Recovery of the 39 phials have been proved by seizure witnesses and Seizing Officer; (iii). Recovery of the above articles have been corroborated by the documentary evidence; (iv). Inventory and sampling duly conducted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in accordance with the procedure; Page No.# 30/31 (v). Forensic Science Laboratory report confirmed/proved that the articles contained Codeine; (vi). Appellant admitted possession of the articles while pleading to charge against him at the time of framing of charge; (vii). Appellant again admitted possession of articles during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and (viii).Explanation offered by the appellant is inconsistent. It is unsupported by any evidence and thus, it is unbelievable. These circumstances, as mentioned above, leave no reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused for commission of the offence. 59. As a result, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or, misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Aizawl. The prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of commercial quantity of Cough Syrup containing Codeine in violation of the provisions of Section 8(c) punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 60. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 10 months, imposed upon the appellant, is the minimum sentence prescribed by law and therefore, the same call for no interference. 61. Resultantly, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed. Page No.# 31/31 62. The judgment dated 11.02.2025 and the order on sentence dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Aizawl, Mizoram, in Sessions Registration No. 91/2022, arising out of Excise Case No. 16/2022, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is hereby affirmed. 63. The appellant shall continue to undergo the remaining sentence. 64. Remit the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant