JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. 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. 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. Both the points were decided against the appellant and the trial Court held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was in conformity and corroborated each other and they are not sufficiently rebutted anywhere and they unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. The Court held that there were no technical defects and the evidence was conclusive that 894.18 grams of heroin were seized from a i20 car occupied by the appellant and the co-accused. The Court also held that there was no body search of the two accused persons and therefore there is no requirement to follow the procedure prescribed in section 50 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge, ND&PS Act Champhai convicted the appellant under section 21(C)/25 NDPS Act and sentenced him 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. Being aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed. 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. Being aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed. 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, 2024(6) GLT 492, learned counsel submits that when the seized articles are not produced physically and when there is no compliance of section 52A of the NDPS Actthere would be no primary evidence. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Binod Yadav (supra) held that in the absence of any evidence/materials on record establishing that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in presence of the Magistrate and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn duly certified by the Magistrate, any samples drawn dehors the said procedure would not be treated as a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial and when it is found that there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole would vitiate. It was further held that if no proceedings under section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the investigating agency for obtaining samples in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate, the chemical examination report given as regard the contraband substance seized cannot also be read into evidence. 8. Learned counsel submits that the I.O/PW-6 in his deposition did not state anywhere that the inventory was certified by the Magistrate or that the photographs were also duly certified or that the list of samples drawn from the seized contraband were certified by the Magistrate. 8. Learned counsel submits that the I.O/PW-6 in his deposition did not state anywhere that the inventory was certified by the Magistrate or that the photographs were also duly certified or that the list of samples drawn from the seized contraband were certified by the Magistrate. In fact, only the inventory was exhibited by the I.O and photographs and list of samples drawn from the seized contraband were not exhibited.The seized articles were also not produced during the trial and assuming they were destroyed, the order of the Magistrate regarding destruction/disposal of the seized articles was also not produced. The remnants of samples returned from the FSL was also not produced. Therefore, it is clear that there is no primary evidence available in the instant case and hence, the entire trial stands vitiated. 9. Another ground which the learned counsel for the appellant has raised is that the samples were not drawn as per the standing notification no.G.S.R.899(E) dated 23.12.2022. He has submitted that the investigating agency had allegedly seized 80 soap cases but a perusal of the FSL report dated 08.06.2023/exhibit P-11 would go to show that there were only 8 samples received by the FSL. The learned counsel referring to the sampling procedure at chapter III Rule 10 of the notification dated 23.12.2022 submits that one sample in duplicate has to be drawn from each package. When the packages seized together are of identical size and weight bearing identical marking and the packages are identical in all respects, the packages and containers may be bunched in lots of not more than 10 packages and for each such lot of packages one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. In case of drawing sample for a particular lot, it shall be ensured that representative sample in equal quantity is taken from each package and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. The standing notification also provides that except in cases of opium, ganja and charas, in all other cases not less than 5 grams shall be drawn for each sample and the same quantity shall be taken for the duplicate sample. In fact, there is discrepancy even with regard to the weight of the samples. The I.O in his cross-examination stated that he took 5 grams as sample from each of the soap cases. In fact, there is discrepancy even with regard to the weight of the samples. The I.O in his cross-examination stated that he took 5 grams as sample from each of the soap cases. However, the FSL report shows that out of the 8 samples received, only one sample weighed 5 grams. The other samples weighed 4.46 gram, 4.95 gram, 5.15 gram, 5.02 gram, 4 gram, 4.86 gram and 5.09 gram. In this regard learned counsel submits that the I.O has not stated anywhere in his deposition before the Court that bunching was done and therefore the fact that only 8 samples were drawn and sent to the FSL is also against the standing notification regarding sampling if there were 80 soap cases. 10. Another ground which the learned counsel for the appellant has taken is that the chain of custody with regard to the seized articles has not been proved by the prosecution. He has submitted that according to the records the samples were sent to the FSL on 27.04.2023, however it was received by the FSL only on 05.05.2023. The prosecution has not explained this delay of 8 days in between the dispatch of the sample and the receipt by the FSL. It is also not explained as to how the sample was sent i.e., whether it was by post or through special messenger. In this regard the learned counsel relied on the case of Lalpekhlui vs State of Mizoram in 2022 (3) GLT 787 wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Courtheld that it would be risky and impermissible to leave the sample with the special messenger for a long gap of time. Chances of tampering when there is lack of evidence about the safe custody of the sample packets in the hands of the special messenger cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submits that according to the seizure memo/exhibit P-5 the seized article was kept at the police station Malkhana against Malkhana register entry No.17/23. However, the Malkhana register were never produced during the trial and instead the godown receipt was produced and exhibited as exhibit P-9. In the godown receipt it is shown that the seized article was kept in the godown and entered in the godown register entry No.1/23 dated 26.04.2023. However, the Malkhana register were never produced during the trial and instead the godown receipt was produced and exhibited as exhibit P-9. In the godown receipt it is shown that the seized article was kept in the godown and entered in the godown register entry No.1/23 dated 26.04.2023. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to explain as to how the seized articles could be kept in two places at the same time. In any view of the matter the entry number in the Malkhana register and the entry number in the godown register also do not tally. The prosecution therefore has not proved the chain of custody from the time the seized articles was kept in the police station Malkhana till the time it was sent to the godown and further no seal fascimiles or signatures of the accused on the seized articles were exhibited during the trial to show that the seized articles were sealed, that they were stored securely and that they were not tampered with till the time they were produced before the Magistrate. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the testimony of the seizure witnesses is also contradictory inasmuch as the PW-2 in his cross-examination stated that he did not know the weight of the articles contained in each soap case and also did not know the number of soap cases. PW-3 who is also a seizure witness in his cross-examination stated that he did not know the weight of the seized articles and stated that there were 20 soap cases. PW-2 and 3 in their deposition further stated in cross- examination that they did not know the owner of the vehicle from where the seized articles were recovered and they did not see the accused person at the P.O. 12. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the forensic expert was not examined by the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs State of Telengana in (2024) 5 SCC 393 . Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the forensic expert was not examined by the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs State of Telengana in (2024) 5 SCC 393 . Learned counsel submits that in the cited case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and when there are doubts regarding the actual weight of the seized quantity of contraband and doubts regarding the number of samples drawn and their safe keeping before sending to FSL, acquittal has to follow. 14. In view of the submissions made herein above and in view of the authorities relied upon, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a fit case where the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment and sentence dated 18.10.2024 passed in Crl. Trial No.197/2023 should be set aside by this Court and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge under section 21(C)/25 NDPS Act. 15. Per contra Ms. Vanneihsiami, the learned Addl.P.P. submits that there are no procedural lapses in the instant case. She submits that the appellant has argued and pleaded a case beyond what is pleaded in the appeal memo. She submits that this Court cannot allow the appellant to argue grounds which are not specifically taken in the appeal memo. 16. Learned Addl.P.P. submits that under section 293 Cr.PC, any document issued by a Government scientific expert can be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or proceeding. Therefore the non-examination of the expert is not fatal to the prosecution case. 17. Learned Addl.P.P also submits that the PW-4 stated in his examination-in-chief that the appellant was proceeding towards Aizawl in the i20 vehicle when he was stopped at the Tuisemphai check gate. He was extremely terrified and out of fear he made a voluntary disclosure statement that they he was smuggling contraband items with the co-accused Lalruatsanga. Thereafter, the recovery of the contraband item was made basing on the disclosure statement of the appellant. The learned P.P. submits that such disclosure statement is admissible in evidence to prove the case against the appellant. Thereafter, the recovery of the contraband item was made basing on the disclosure statement of the appellant. The learned P.P. submits that such disclosure statement is admissible in evidence to prove the case against the appellant. By such disclosure statement, the conscious possession on the part of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution.In support of her submission, learned P.P. relies on the case of Madan Lal and Another vs State of H.P , 2003 7SCC 465 wherein the Apex Court held that the word ‘conscious’ means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. Possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in the case in question. 18. Learned Addl.P.P. further submits that when conscious possession is proved, the presumption under section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act arises. Unlike the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, the NDPS Act carries a reverse burden of proof under section 35 and 54. And the accused/appellant has to discharge the burden. The appellant has not been able to do so. In support of her submissions, learned Addl.P.P. also relies on the case of Bharat Aambale vs State of Chhatisgarh in 2025 8 SCC 452, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that the procedure prescribed by the standing notifications/rules in terms of section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the investigating agency and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid down. Mere non compliance of section 52A or the standing notifications will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Court should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses. Court should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses. The Apex Court further held in the cited case that if other materials on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the Court as regard the recovery as well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused person, then even in such cases, the Court can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of section 52A of the NDPS Act. In the instant case, the learned Addl. P.P submits that the inventory was prepared and certified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the photographs were taken and samples were drawn, packed and sealed for sending to the FSL before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The inventory as well as the photographs were exhibited and proved by the I.O as exhibit P-8 and exhibit P-10, P-10(a), (b), (c) and (d). Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the provisions of section 52A of the NDPS Act were not complied with. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Aambale (supra) substantial compliance of the procedure has been followed by the investigating agency. Further, the delay caused in sending the seized articles to the FSL is due to the fact that the articles were seized at Tuisenphai check gate and time was taken to sent the samples to the FSL which is located at Aizawl. Moreover, all the samples were sealed and there was no tampering of the samples as shown by the FSL report dated 08.06.2023 where it is stated that the samples were packed and sealed with wax seals. 19. Learned Addl.P.P submits that the appellant has not been able to make out a case for this Court to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the appellant in the judgment dated 18.10.2024 in Crl. Trial 197/2023. 20. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the TCR. 21. Trial 197/2023. 20. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the TCR. 21. Before addressing the submissions of the opposite parties, this Court shall examine the prosecution evidence adduced before the trial Court:- (i) PW-1 is the seizing officer who deposed that on 26.04.2023 at around 12.20 AM, a call was received from Tuisenphai check gate that one vehicle Hyundia i20 driven by the appellant was detained on suspicion. Accordingly, the PW-1 and party rushed to the spot and checking was conducted over the said vehicle. They recovered 80 soap cases with brown powder suspected to be heroine from the back side carrier of the vehicle in presence of two civilian witnesses. Weighing, re-packing and sealing of the seized articles was done at the spot in presence of the witnesses and it weighed 894.18 grams in total. In his cross-examination he deposed that the police personal at the check gate on the night of the incident were not listed as seizure witnesses. He deposed that he collected the two civilian witnesses and they reached the PO together at around 1.30 AM. (ii) PW-2 is the independent seizure witness. In his examination-in-chief he stated that when he and PW-3 reached the P.O, the seizing party recovered 80 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin from the back carrier of one vehicle i20. Weighing, re-packing and sealing of the seized articles were done in his presence and it weighed 894.18 grams in total.The occupants of the car and the possessor of the seized articles, Joseph Laldingngheta and Lalrosanga were apprehended in his presence. In his cross-examination PW-2 stated that the seized articles were recovered from one i20 vehicle parked near the check post. The two accused persons were already inside the duty check post when he reached the PO. He does not know the owner of the said i20 vehicle. He also did not see the two accused driving or occupying the vehicle or transporting the sized article. He also stated in the cross-examination that he did not know the weight of the seized articles in each soap case and also does not know the number of soap cases. (iii) PW-3 is also an independent seizure witness. He also did not see the two accused driving or occupying the vehicle or transporting the sized article. He also stated in the cross-examination that he did not know the weight of the seized articles in each soap case and also does not know the number of soap cases. (iii) PW-3 is also an independent seizure witness. In his examination-in- chief he deposed that when he and PW-2 reached the PO, the seizing party recovered 80 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin from the back carrier of one vehicle i20. Weighing, re-packing and sealing of the seized articles were done his presence and it weighed 894.18 grams in total. The occupants of the car and the possessor of the seized articles, Joseph Laldingngheta and Lalrosanga were apprehended in his presence. On being cross-examined PW-3 stated that he cannot remember the two accused persons. The two accused persons were inside the duty check post when he reached the PO. He stated that the seized articles were recovered from one i20 vehicle parked near the duty check post. PW-3 further stated in the cross-examination that the owner of the vehicle was not present at the spot and he did not see the two accused persons driving or occupying the vehicle or transporting the seized articles. He further stated that he did not know the weight of the seized articles contained in each soap case and he stated that the number of soap cases was 20. (iv) PW-4 is police personnel who was on duty at the Tuisenphai check gate on the night 26.04.2023. He stated in his examination-in-chief that when the i20 vehicle driven by the appellant reached the check gate, he stepped out of the vehicle and he was extremely terrified and out of fear he made a voluntary disclosure that he was smuggling contraband items with the co-accused Lalrosanga, whereas the co-accused walked on foot to avoid the check gate. He informed the seizing officer at the police station and on his command they followed the appellant and when they reached the place where the co-accused would join the appellant they waited for some minutes and as soon as the co-accused came, they halted him and waited for the seizing officer without conducting search. He informed the seizing officer at the police station and on his command they followed the appellant and when they reached the place where the co-accused would join the appellant they waited for some minutes and as soon as the co-accused came, they halted him and waited for the seizing officer without conducting search. After the arrival of the sizing officer, search was conducted and they recovered 80 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin from the back carrier of the i20 vehicle which the co-accused had just placed. In his cross-examination the PW-4 stated that the co-accused Lalrosanga was carrying the contraband articles in a plastic sack. The plastic sack was not transparent so as to enable them to see whether the sack contain heroine. He stated that the plastic sack was carried by the accused Lalrosanga with his hands. (v) PW-6 is the I.O of the case. He deposed that on 26.04.2023 at around 12.20 AM the seizing officer received a telephone call from Tuisenphai check gate stating that the duty party had detained one hyundai i20 car driven by the appellant and co-accused Lalrosanga on suspicion of carrying contraband items. The seizing officer rushed to the spot and conducted search over the said vehicle and the occupants at around 1 to 2 Kms away from the Tuisenphai check post. 80 soap cases of brown powder suspected to be heroin was recovered from the back carrier of the said vehicle possessed by Lalrosanga and the appellant in presence of two reliable witnesses. The two civilian witnesses stated that they have witnessed the seizure, recovery and weighment with their own eyes. The seized articles were sent to FSL Aizawl and he confirmed that the seized articles were heroine with 82% w/w purity. The appellant admitted his guilt before him and confessed that he co-operated with the co-accused Lalrosanga to smuggle the seized articles for Rs.20,000/-. The appellant further stated that the co-accused Lalrosanga stepped out of the vehicle with the seized articles to avoid checking at Khankawn check post and Tuisenphai check post. The appellant admitted his guilt before him and confessed that he co-operated with the co-accused Lalrosanga to smuggle the seized articles for Rs.20,000/-. The appellant further stated that the co-accused Lalrosanga stepped out of the vehicle with the seized articles to avoid checking at Khankawn check post and Tuisenphai check post. However,the appellant was extremely terrified at the time of his check-in at Tuisenphai check post, and the duty personnel followed him and as soon as the co-accused Lalrosanga joined him back with the seized articles and after they crossed the check post, the duty personnel who were already alarmed stopped him and after the arrival of the seizing officer they conducted the checking and recovered the seized articles from the back carrier/boot space. In his cross-examination the PW-6 stated that they brought the two seizure witnesses along with them in their vehicle on their way to the P.O. He also stated that when he reached the P.O he did not see the two accused inside the car. He stated that the seized articles were not present inside the vehicle when the vehicle crossed the check gate and he did not actually see who put the seized articles in the back of the car. He stated that they took 5 grams as samples from each of the soap cases. (vi) DW-1 is one Margaret Liani a resident of new Champhai. She stated in her examination-in-chief that she knows the two accused persons. They used to earn their livelihood by working as a Driver and handyman. They don’t have criminal antecedents. On 25.04.2023 she met the two accused persons and they informed her that they intended to visit Aizawl to meet some relatives. She knew that the two accused bought some edible items and they packed it in a green plastic bag. She bid farewell to them for their safe journey and both of them went inside their Hyundai i20 vehicle. She knows that the two accused never went to Myanmar before they proceeded to Aizawl as they were staying in her house the week before they got arrested. She believes that the two accused persons were wrongly implicated in the case as they never got involved in any criminal case. She knows that the two accused never went to Myanmar before they proceeded to Aizawl as they were staying in her house the week before they got arrested. She believes that the two accused persons were wrongly implicated in the case as they never got involved in any criminal case. On being cross-examined DW-1 stated that the accused persons stayed with her for one week and she did not know what they were doing and where they went during their stay at Champhai. 22. In his 313 Cr.PC examination, the accused/appellant denied everything and stated that nothing was seized from his possession and he has no knowledge about the matter. 23. It has to be remembered that the provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. At the outset the prosecution has to prove the foundational facts of the case. The foundational facts in a NDPS case are the essential, preliminary facts that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt before the Court can invoke legal presumption of guilt against an accused, particularly under section 35 and 54 of the Act.These facts constitute the “roots” of the case and must be established to satisfy the stringent requirement of the Act. The key foundational facts are- (i) valid search and seizure (ii) conscious possession (iii) proof of contraband (iv) chain of custody and sampling and (v) documentation/full report of the arrest and seizure to superior officers within 48 hours. If these foundational facts are not proved, the statutory presumption against the accused does not apply and the prosecution case becomes weak. Without proving these foundational facts the Court has to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of Noor Aga Vrs State of Punjab , (2008) 16 SCC 417 , the Apex Court held that because the NDPS Act prescribes extremely harsh punishments and reverses the burden of proof, the prosecution must first prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption against the accused can arise. The Apex Court also stated that physical evidence regarding recovered contraband being property of the Court, in absence of Order under Sec 52A, non-production thereof would warrant drawing of adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. 24. The Apex Court also stated that physical evidence regarding recovered contraband being property of the Court, in absence of Order under Sec 52A, non-production thereof would warrant drawing of adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. 24. For a search and seizure to be valid under the NDPS Act, the search must be conducted by an empowered gazetted officer or a subordinate authorised by him. The seizing officer must record any information regarding the offence in writing before proceeding with the search. A copy of the information recorded must be sent to the immediate superior officer within 72 hours. A detailed seizure memo must be prepared listing the seized items and signatures of witnesses. The seized articles must be sent to the nearest police station for storage in the police station Malkhana. A detailed inventory and sampling must be done before a Magistrate to be considered valid evidence. Moreover, the chain of custody for the seized articles is to be proved by establishing an unbroken, documented record of possession from the moment of seizure to production in Court. This requires detailed testimony and documentation which covers the sealing, transportation, secure storage and forensic testing ensuring that the seized articles remains untampered. This would mean that the seized substances must be immediately marked for identification and sealed by the seizing officer with the accused’s signature. Every transfer of the seized articles must be logged, including the name of the person handing over the item, the person receiving it and the date/time and the purpose of the transfer. The seized articles must be stored in the police station Malkhana which should be a secure, authorised facility with limited access to authorised personnel in order to prevent tampering. The samples must be transmitted to the FSL and the prosecution has to prove by exhibiting the facsimile of the seal to prove that the sealed sample received by the FSL is the same one which was dispatched after drawal before the Magistrate. All the witnesses who handled the evidence from the seizing officer to the expert should be able to testify that the integrity of the seal was maintained. Any gap in the chain of custody, such as unexplained delays in sending samples for testing or missing documentation can raise doubts about the integrity of the seized article. All the witnesses who handled the evidence from the seizing officer to the expert should be able to testify that the integrity of the seal was maintained. Any gap in the chain of custody, such as unexplained delays in sending samples for testing or missing documentation can raise doubts about the integrity of the seized article. Failure to prove the chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt can lead to the evidence being unreliable. 25. In the instant case it is seen that the seizure from the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the seizure witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3 have deposed that they did not see the accused person driving the vehicle or possessing the vehicle or carrying the seized articles. The I.O himself stated that the seized articles were not present inside the vehicle when the vehicle crossed the check gate and he did not actually see who put the seized articles in the back of the car.They also could not say how many soap cases were recovered. PW-4 is the only witness who was actually present at the Tuisenphai check gate when the appellant was allegedly detained. However, he has not been able to prove that the seized articles recovered from the i20 vehicle of the appellantwas kept by the appellant. He only stated that 80 soap cases were recovered from the back carrier of the i20 vehicle which the co- accused had just placed. He stated that it was the co-accused who was carrying the contraband articles in a plastic sack but he could not see whether the sack contained heroin as the sack was not transparent. The PW-4 is not at all clear whether the seized articles were recovered from the co-accused who was carrying it in a plastic sack or whether the co-accused kept the plastic sack in the i20 vehicle and then it was recovered from the vehicle. The rest of the PWs including the independent witnesses have all travelled to the P.O from the police station at Khawzawl. In fact, the evidence is very vague as to the exact spot from where the recovery was made. As far as compliance of section 52A NDPS Act is concerned, the same is vital in the instant case as the seized articles were never produced physically before the trial Court. In fact, the evidence is very vague as to the exact spot from where the recovery was made. As far as compliance of section 52A NDPS Act is concerned, the same is vital in the instant case as the seized articles were never produced physically before the trial Court. Even if assuming it was destroyed the prosecution could not show on what authority it was done. It is seen that the prosecution could only produce and exhibit the inventory and the photographs. The prosecution could not produce the list of samples drawn from the seized contraband duly certified by the Magistrate. In the case of Binod Yadav (supra), the Division Bench had specifically held that an obligation was cast on the prosecution to produce and exhibit (i) the inventory (ii) the photographs and (iii) the list of samples drawn from the seized contraband certified by the Magistrate regarding the correctness of the list of samples so drawn, as this would be the primary evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. In fact, the Division Bench held that when this primary evidence is not available, the trial would be vitiated. 26. It is also pertinent that a perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court shows that the seized articles were produced before the Magistrate on 26.04.2023. The inventory was certified, the photographs were taken and samples were drawn from each packet out of 80 packets marked as exhibit 1 to 80.The order sheet shows that samples were drawn from all 80 packets. However, the FSL report dated 08.06.2023 reveals that only 8 samples were received.The I.O in his deposition also stated that only 8 samples were sent to the FSL. Nothing can be elicited from the evidence about bunching and as there is no list of samples certified by the Magistrate it is not known as to how many samples were actually sent to the FSL. This is a fatal discrepancy and a total violation of the sampling procedure as laid down in the standing notification. The differences in the weight of the samples sent and received by the FSL is also another factor about which the prosecution during the trial was totally silent. 27. Another factor which is fatal for the prosecution is that the Malkhana register was never produced before the Court. Only the godown receipt was produced and exhibited. The differences in the weight of the samples sent and received by the FSL is also another factor about which the prosecution during the trial was totally silent. 27. Another factor which is fatal for the prosecution is that the Malkhana register was never produced before the Court. Only the godown receipt was produced and exhibited. There is no explanation as to how the seized articles got transferred from the police station Malkhana to the godown and the chain of custody in between these two places has not been proved by the prosecution nor has any person been examined to prove that the seized articles remained intact during the transfer. 28. In normal circumstances the appellant cannot urge any new grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal without the leave of the Court. However, when the new grounds are purely legal grounds and do not require any new factual foundation, the Court would view the same as a pure question of law arising from facts already on record.The appellant has argued on grounds which are not in the memo of appeal, however, the same are based on purely legal grounds and there is no bar for the appellant to raise such grounds. 29. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the failure on the part of the seizing officer to send the full report of arrest and seizure to his superior officer within 48 hours; the gaps in the chain of custody with regard to the seized articles; the inability of the independent witnesses and the I.O to prove the recovery from the accused person; the non-production of the certified list of samples drawn from the seized items, the non-production of the seal facsimile;and the non- production of the Malkhana register, all goes to show that the prosecution has been unable to prove the foundational facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt. 30. Resultantly, the accused/appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and as such the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Court ND&PS Act Champhai in Crl. Trial No.197/2023 corresponding to Khawzawl P.S Case No.19/2023 convicting the appellant under Section 21(C)/25 of NDPS Act is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant/accused is set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 31. Trial No.197/2023 corresponding to Khawzawl P.S Case No.19/2023 convicting the appellant under Section 21(C)/25 of NDPS Act is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant/accused is set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 31. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.