Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010126202025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./230/2025 KAMAL HASSAN AND 2 ORS S/O. MD. KAMRUL HAQUE, RESIDENT OF THOUBAL MOIJING, KHONGMANUNG, MOIJING, THOUBAL, PIN-795138, P/S- AND P/O- THOUBAL, DISTRICT- THOUBAL, MANIPUR 2: SAGIR AHMED S/O. SAMIUDDIN RESIDENT OF MAYAI LEIKAI MOIJING THOUBAL PIN-795138 P/S AND DIST. THOUBAL MANIPUR 3: RAQUBUL HASSAN S/O. MD. RAHAMAD RESIDENT OF TOMEI THOUBAL PIN-795138 PS AND P/O- THOUBAL DISTRICT- THOUBAL MANIPU VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/19 Advocate for the appellants : Mr. D. Goswami Advocate for the respondent : Ms. A. Begum, Addl. Public Prosecutor BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (CAV) (Helen Dawngliani, J) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 36 B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (ND&PS Act, 1985 in short) read with section 415(2) of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong in NDPS Case No. 06/2023 (G.R.No.255/2022 State of Assam versus Md. Kamal Hassan & Ors.) wherein the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) ND&PS Act and vide Order dated 07.05.2025 they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 (twelve) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only each, and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year. Page No.# 3/19 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF:- 2.1. On 18.10.2022 SI(P) Akash Gogoi of Dillai Police Station, Karbi Anglong, Assam lodged a written FIR to the Officer-In-Charge of Dillai Police Station, Karbi Anglong, Assam in reference to Dillai PS GDE No.355 of 18.10.2022, to the effect that during search of the vehicle i20 bearing registration No. AS-01 AR- 2221 on 18.10.2022, they recovered from 2 big brown bags 2 big packets suspected to contain Yaba tablets. Each packet contained 50 small packets containing 200 suspected Yaba tablet each (PI) (50x200) tablets and P(2) (50x200), totaling 20,000 tablets. A blue coloured bag contained 49 packets, each consisting of 200 Yaba tablets (200x49)=9800, which is P3. On the basis of the First Information Report (FIR), Dillai PS Case No. 35 of 2022 u/s 22 (c) ND&PS Act was registered and the case was endorsed to SI (UB) Dipak Lahon for Investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and charge was framed against each of the accused/appellant namely Md. Kamal Hussain (A1), Md. Sagir Ahmed (A2) and Md. Raqubul Hassan for the offence punishable u/s 22 (c) ND & PS Act r/w section 29 of the ND & PS Act. 2.2. During the course of trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and one (1) Court witness. PW No. 1/Rajen Konwar is a civilian. He witnessed the search and seizure and also saw the three accused/appellants inside the car. PW No. 2/S.I Akash Gogoi is the informant. He conducted search, seizure, prepared seizure list, prepared sketch map, apprehended the appellants, interrogated and recorded their statements. PW No. 3/Inspector Utpal Sharma was the Circle Inspector of Barpathak. The interception and search of the vehicle was reported to him and he immediately arrived at the spot and witnessed the search and seizure. Page No.# 4/19 PW No. 4/John Das, who was the SDPO of Bokajan, was also informed of the search and recovery. He immediately reached the spot. He signed the seized packets at the spot as Gazetted Officer. During investigation, the sample was brought to his office and under his seal and signature, it was forwarded to the DFSL for examination. PW No. 5/S.I (UB) Lutfur Rahman was the Officer-in-Charge of Dillai P.S. On 18.10.2022, when recovery was made. On reaching the spot, he witnessed the search, seizure, counting, packing and sealing. PW No. 6/Ranjita Basumatary, Constable, PW No. 7/Jayata Borah, Head Constable, PW No. 9/H.G Maising Tokbi, a Home Guard of Police Department, all posted in Dillai P.S, were seizure witnesses. PW No. 8/Akbor Ali, who was driving the Police vehicle also witnessed the seizure. He was the driver of the vehicle requisitioned by the Police at the relevant time. PW No. 10/Banasree Deka is an expert witness. 2.3. Accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.PC. Each of the accused persons declined to adduce evidence. The parties were heard and thereafter the impugned Judgment and Order with the aforesaid sentence was passed, convicting the three (3) accused appellants for the offence punishable u/s 22(c) ND&PS Act, while holding that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the offence of Conspiracy punishable u/s 29 ND & PS Act. For their conviction u/s 22 (c) ND&PS Act, each of the appellants were sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 12 (Twelve) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year each. Page No.# 5/19 3. Heard Mr. D. Goswami, Ld. Counsel for the appellants. Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the Ld. Counsel submitted that firstly, though the alleged search and seizure was made in a joint Naka Checking at Dillai Tiniali there were some shops near the place of occurrence, no attempt was made by the seizing party to procure the presence of independent/civilian to witness the search and seizure. In this regard the Ld. Counsel submitted that the lone independent witness, namely PW No.1/Rajen Konwar could not identify the accused on video conferencing and he could not remember the name and colour of the tablets seized. Similarly all other prosecution witness stated that they did not see any marking or strip on the seized tablets, which could establish the brand or identification and that this created a serious doubt as to whether the said tablets were sent to the FSL. Secondly, though in the FIR dated 18.10.2022 it was mentioned that CRPF personnel were present during the naka check, no such CRPF personnel were made witnesses by the prosecution. Further, PW No.1/Rajan Konwar in his cross examination categorically stated that there were no army or CRPF Personnel. Thirdly, it is submitted that from the evidence adduced, it cannot be conclusively held that the contraband seized was of commercial quantity as per Notification No.9 of 2001 of the NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001. From the cross examination of the PWs, it appears the counting was not done properly and they only assumed the total number and that the tablets sent to FSL weighed only 14.9 grams in total. Further, there is inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, with regard to the time taken to count the tablets. While PW No.6 stated that it took 2 hours to count the tablets, PW No.9 stated that it was 30 minutes and PW No.7 could not remember the time taken. The inconsistency according to the Ld. Counsel, has created a further doubt in the prosecution story. It was next Page No.# 6/19 argued by the Ld. Counsel that no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to find out the owner of the vehicle from where the seizure was made and it was established during trial that the vehicle did not belong to the appellants and there is no evidence which connects the accused with the vehicle. It was only the Police witnesses who deposed that the accused/appellants were inside the vehicle when it was intercepted. It is lastly submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the provision of section 52-A ND&PS Act have not been complied with and that the Ld. Trial Court had erred in not accepting the explanation offered by the appellants during their examination u/s 313 Cr.PC. Mr. D. Goswami summarizes his argument by submitting that his main grounds of challenge was the failure to find out the owner of the contraband items from where seizure was made, the absence of civilian witnesses, the inconsistency in the number and/presence of CRPF personnel at the time of seizure and contradictions with regard to the persons who counted the tablets and the time taken by them. The Ld. Counsel therefore submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants and thus prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence and set the appellants at liberty. In support of his submissions, the Ld. Counsel has placed reliance in the case of (i) Bishwajit Dey versus The State of Assam 2025 3 SCC 241 (ii) Avtar Singh versus State of Punjab (2002) 7 SCC 419 (iii) Gangadhar Alias Gangaram versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 9 SCC 202 and (iv) Shafhi Mohammad versus State Of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311. 4. Ms. A Begum, Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that the Ld. Trial Page No.# 7/19 Court has correctly appreciated the facts and evidence on record and that there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there is clear evidence to the effect that the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AR-2221 was intercepted on a naka bandi that was set up at Dillai Tiniali Naka Checking point and the fact that the three appellants were inside the said vehicle when it was intercepted. The appellants have not substantiated their statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that they were at the junction looking for jobs. Search, seizure, sampling and packaging were done as per procedure. The FSL report shows that the sample sent for examination yielded positive result for methamphetamine, which was duly proved by the Junior Scientific officer. The Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the core issue constituting the offence u/s 22 (c) ND&PS Act had been duly proved and the Ld. Trial Court had rightly invoked the presumption clause. The Ld. Trial Court came to a finding the tablets seized contained methamphetamine which was duly proved by PW No. 10/Banasree Deka (Expert witness). PW No.1/Rajen Konwar unequivocally stated that there were three individuals inside the car when it was intercepted and searched. Additionally, PW No.6/Ranjita Basumatary, PW No.7/Jayanta Bora and PW No.9/Maising Tokbi is that the three appellants were inside the i20 car when it was intercepted and searched and this evidence corroborated the testimony of PW No.2/SI Akash Gogoi. According to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the difference in the evidence with regard to time taken for counting the tablets is inconsequential, as there is clear evidence with regard to the search, recovery and counting and that it does not affect the core issue. As regards compliance of section 52A ND&PS Act it was submitted that the seized contraband was produced before Judicial Magistrate on 19.10.2022. The Magistrate then certified on the body of the inventory that it Page No.# 8/19 weighed 3.1 Kgs, which tallied with the seizure list. Samples A & B were made, packed and sealed, PW No.11/IO proved the inventory as Ext.P-13/PW-11. CW proved that the contraband was kept in the PS Malkhana in a sealed condition. PW No.10/Expert deposed that sample was received in a sealed parcel. Therefore the contraband was produced before the Magistrate without delay, inventory was duly certified, sampling was done in presence of Magistrate. Thus, non production of the seized item during trial would not affect the prosecution case. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor therefore submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence is proper and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. The first and foremost aspect requiring consideration is whether the substance allegedly recovered from the vehicle was in fact a psychotropic substance. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-10, the scientific expert, who examined the sample forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and found it to contain methamphetamine. The evidence of the expert is not shown to have been materially shaken in cross-examination. There is also evidence that the sample was received by the FSL in a sealed condition. Therefore, the argument that the police witnesses themselves could not identify the precise brand or marking of the tablets does not materially assist the appellants. 5.1. The question whether the tablets were "YABA" in the colloquial sense is not determinative by itself. What is material is the scientific identification of the substance contained in the representative sample. Once the FSL examination establishes the presence of methamphetamine, the evidentiary value of the Page No.# 9/19 scientific report cannot be discarded merely because the police witnesses did not remember the colour or markings on the tablets. The prosecution has thus satisfactorily established the nature of the seized substance. 6. The next submission concerns the failure of the prosecution to associate more civilian witnesses with the seizure. In the case at hand, apart from PW No.1/Rajen Konwar, PW No.8/Akbor Ali also has to be regarded as an independent witness, inasmuch as, during his cross examination he stated that he had been driving vehicle since 2018 and at the time of the present case he was driving a vehicle which was requisitioned by the Police Department. Over and above the aforementioned two witnesses, this Court is unable to doubt the credibility of the remaining prosecution witness only because they happen to be Police personnel. It is undoubtedly desirable that, wherever practicable, independent witnesses should be associated with a search and seizure. Such a course enhances the transparency and credibility of the investigation. However, the absence of an independent witness does not, by itself, render the evidence of police witnesses inadmissible or inherently unreliable. The Court is required to scrutinize such evidence with care and caution and determine whether it is otherwise trustworthy and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 (Jothi @ Nagajothi Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police) 2025 INSC 1417 held as follows: “21. This Court has consistently held that the non-examination of independent witnesses is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution, particularly in prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations often take place under challenging circumstances. In Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020 (2) SCC 563), this Court reiterated that the mere absence of independent witnesses Page No.# 10/19 does not lead to the conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated. Referring to Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521), the Court underscored that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their official status and that their evidence must be assessed on its own merits like that of any other witness. 22. In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent. Their depositions corroborate each other on all material particulars and no material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt on their credibility. The absence of independent witnesses, therefore, cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner.” 6.1. In the present case, PW-1, Rajen Konwar, was examined as an independent witness. His inability to identify the appellants through video conferencing or his inability to recollect the colour or name of the tablets cannot be elevated into a circumstance which completely destroys the prosecution case. The prosecution case does not rest solely upon PW-1. The evidence of PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9, read with the seizure documents, investigation materials and FSL report, provides substantial corroboration. To the considered view of this court, the mere fact that PW No.1 did not support every aspect of the prosecution case cannot result in rejection of the entire prosecution evidence. 7. The appellants have placed considerable reliance upon the fact that the FIR mentions the presence of CRPF personnel, whereas PW-1 stated that there were no army or CRPF personnel at the place of checking. The contradiction, in our considered opinion, does not go to the root of the prosecution case. The core Page No.# 11/19 question is whether the vehicle was intercepted and searched and whether the appellants were found therein with the contraband. The presence or absence of CRPF personnel, by itself, is not an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. A discrepancy concerning the composition of the naka party may be relevant if it creates a fundamental doubt about the occurrence itself. However, the evidence on record, taken as a whole, does not indicate that the naka checking was fabricated merely because of the discrepancy concerning the presence of CRPF personnel. This ground, therefore, does not persuade us to reject the prosecution case. 8. Learned counsel has also referred to the discrepancies regarding the time taken to count the tablets. PW-6 stated that approximately two hours were taken, whereas PW-9 stated that the counting took about thirty minutes and PW-7 was unable to remember the exact time. In the view of this court, the discrepancy is peripheral and that law does not require witnesses to give mathematical precision regarding the time consumed in carrying out a physical exercise, such as counting a large number of tablets. Human memory regarding the duration of an event is inherently susceptible to approximation. More importantly, the prosecution case regarding the number of tablets is supported by the seizure documents and inventory. The evidence regarding the weight and the subsequent sampling and forensic examination has to be considered along with the physical seizure. The discrepancy in the estimate of time taken for counting cannot reasonably be regarded as sufficient to discredit the seizure itself. 8.1. The appellants have not demonstrated any specific circumstance establishing that the sample examined by the FSL was substituted, tampered Page No.# 12/19 with, or unrelated to the material seized from the vehicle. The recent decision in Bharat Aambale versus State of Chhatisgarh 2025 INSC 78 makes it clear that a bald allegation of non-compliance cannot, without more, result in acquittal where the prosecution evidence otherwise establishes the seizure, sampling and chain of custody. The present case is therefore distinguishable from cases where the prosecution was unable to establish that the sample tested by the FSL was drawn from the seized contraband or where there was a serious break in the chain of custody. 9. A challenge has also been made on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the seized material was of commercial quantity. PW No.1/Rajen Konwar stated that inside the car the police recovered large quantity of tablets, that the police counted the tablets and seized them by preparing a seizure list. PW No.2/SI Akash Gogoi on checking the i20 car stated that they found 2 brown colour packets in the dickey of the car, when they opened the packets they found 100 blue color packets and each blue colour packets contained 200 tablets. Upon further search of the vehicle, inside the music box they found 49 more blue colour packets, each packet contained 200 YABA tablets. Similar statement was made by PW No.3/Inspector Utpal Sharma, PW No.4/ John Das SDPO, PW No.5/ SI(UB) Lutfur Rahman, PW No.6/ Pradip Basumatary, PW No.7/Jayanta Borah, PW No.8/ Akbor Ali and PW No.9/HG Maising Tokbi also deposed that upon search of the vehicle about 29800 tablets of Yaba was recovered. The inventory shows that Sample A consisting of 149 tablets weighed 14.98 grams and Sample B containing 149 tablets weighed 15.61 grams. PW No.10/Banasree Deka, Junior Scientific Officer at Drugs and Narcotics Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam deposed that Sample Page No.# 13/19 A containing 14.9 grams of 149 tablets of Yaba was received for examination. In this regard, the argument proceeds mainly on the basis that the samples examined by the FSL weighed only 14.9 grams and that the tablets were not individually weighed. This submission appears to have overlooked the distinction between the quantity of the seized contraband and the quantity of the representative sample sent for chemical analysis. The sample is not required to be equal in weight to the entire seized substance. Its purpose is to represent the seized material for forensic examination. What is material is whether the prosecution has satisfactorily established the identity and linkage of the sample with the seized substance and the total quantity seized. 9.1. In the present case, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution shows that the seized material was inventorized and produced before the Magistrate on 19.10.2022 without delay. The FSL report established the presence of methamphetamine in the sample. Therefore, the mere fact that the sample sent to the FSL weighed substantially less than the total seized material, cannot lead to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the quantity of the contraband. The relevant consideration is the total quantity of the psychotropic substance recovered and duly proved through the seizure and inventory evidence, and not merely the weight of the representative sample examined by the laboratory. 10. Another submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is that the vehicle did not belong to the appellants and that the Investigating Officer failed to ascertain its registered owner. The argument, appears to have proceeded on an erroneous premise, inasmuch as, the prosecution case is not that the appellants were convicted merely because they owned the vehicle. Page No.# 14/19 10.1. On this issue, PW-1 stated that three persons were inside the vehicle when it was intercepted and searched. PW-2, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 have also deposed regarding the presence of the three appellants inside the vehicle. Their evidence is materially consistent on the central fact that the appellants were travelling together in the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered. The learned trial Court has specifically noticed that the appellants, in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., put forward the explanation that they were present at the junction looking for employment. The explanation, however, has not been substantiated by any independent evidence. 10.2. It would certainly be better if further investigation was conducted with regard to the ownership of the vehicle. But failure to do so, would not, in the view of this Court be fatal to the prosecution, who has been able to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the three appellants were travelling in the said car at the time of interception and search. As per evidence, the seized items were recovered from the dickey of the car and the music box. Considering the quantity of the seized items and the place from where they were found, it is very unlikely that the occupants would have boarded the vehicle without their knowledge. The Supreme Court in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, (2025) 3 SCC 241, was concerned with the question of interim custody of a vehicle seized in an NDPS case. The decision amongst others described four scenarios of seizure from conveyance and recognizes, inter alia, that ownership of a vehicle and the criminal liability of persons found in possession of contraband are distinct questions. 11. In Avtar Singh (supra) which was relied by the learned counsel for the Page No.# 15/19 appellants, the Supreme Court cautioned against drawing an automatic inference of possession merely because persons happened to be near or sitting upon bags containing contraband. The facts of the present case, however, are distinguishable. Here, the prosecution evidence is not confined to the mere circumstance that the appellants were somewhere near the contraband. The evidence is that all three appellants were occupants of the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered. The evidence of several witnesses establishes their presence inside the vehicle at the relevant time. The examination of appellants u/s 313 Cr.PC also include questions on recovery of contraband items from the car which was occupied by the three appellants. The uniform reply of all the appellants is that they were not inside the car and that they happened to be nearby looking for work, but these statements were not supported by evidence. 11.1. In Gangadhar alias Gangaram (supra), which has been relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, recovery was made from a house. That decision turned upon the question whether the prosecution had satisfactorily established the accused's possession of the contraband recovered from the premises and whether the evidence established the necessary nexus between the accused and the seized substance. The said decision does not lay down a proposition that ownership of the place or vehicle from which contraband is recovered is indispensable in every case. The facts here, as already noticed, are materially different. The prosecution has established the presence of the appellants inside the vehicle at the time of interception and recovery. Hence, the said decision does not advance the case of the appellants. 11.2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant have also relied on the case of Shafi Mohammad versus State of Punjab (supra), wherein an observation was Page No.# 16/19 made by the Supreme Court that time is ripe that steps are taken to introduce videography in investigation, as suggested by the Committee of MHA to strengthen the Rule of Law. It may be noted that the FIR in the instant case was filed on 18.10.2022, which is prior to the criminal law amendment of 2023 which came into effect from July,2024 wherein the suggestion made by the Apex Court have been incorporated. But the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. 12. The question of non compliance of section 52-A NDPS Act has been raised as one of the grounds of challenge. Section 52-A provides procedural safeguards concerning inventory, photographs, sampling and certification of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Supreme Court has recently comprehensively considered the scope of Section 52-A in Bharat Aambale (supra). The Court explained that Section 52-A serves not merely the purpose of disposal of seized contraband, but also introduces safeguards concerning inventory, photographs and sampling. At the same time, the Court clarified that the procedure contained in the statutory provision and the relevant Standing Orders requires substantial compliance, and that every procedural irregularity does not automatically vitiate a trial. The Supreme Court further explained that where foundational facts demonstrating non-compliance are established, the prosecution must demonstrate substantial compliance or satisfy the Court that the alleged non-compliance has not affected the prosecution case. 12.1. The evidence, as placed before this Court, shows that the seized contraband was produced before the learned Magistrate on 19.10.2022, i.e. on the following day. The inventory was prepared and the weight of the seized substance was recorded as 3.1 kilograms. The learned Magistrate certified the Page No.# 17/19 inventory. The Investigating Officer proved the inventory as Exhibit P-13/PW- 11.There is also evidence that samples were drawn, packed and sealed, and that the seized contraband was thereafter kept in the police Malkhana. The Court witness has supported the custody of the seized material in sealed condition, while PW-10, the scientific expert, stated that the sample was received in a sealed parcel. Thus, the chain from seizure to production before the Magistrate, sampling, sealing, storage and forensic examination is substantially established. 12.2. Even assuming that there was some procedural departure from the ideal procedure prescribed under Section 52-A or the relevant Standing Orders, the question is whether such departure has caused a serious and demonstrable prejudice to the appellants or created a reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the sample examined by the FSL. On the evidence available, the answer must be in the negative. The seized material was produced before the Magistrate without undue delay; the inventory was certified; samples were drawn and sealed; the material remained in the Malkhana; and the FSL received the sample in sealed condition. Most importantly, the FSL report independently establishes that the sample contained methamphetamine. 13. With the evidence in hand, this court is of the view that the foundational facts such as presence of the three appellants inside the vehicle; recovery of a substantial quantity of tablets from the vehicle; preparation of seizure and inventory documents; production of the seized material before the Magistrate; drawing and sealing of samples; safe custody of the seized material; receipt of the sample by the FSL in sealed condition; and identification of methamphetamine by the forensic expert have been proved by the prosecution Page No.# 18/19 during the course of trial. Once those foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for the possession. The appellants have not been able to furnish a probable and satisfactory explanation, capable of displacing the statutory presumption. Their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were merely at the junction looking for employment is unsupported by any evidence and does not satisfactorily account for their presence inside the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered. The Ld. Trial had rightly invoked the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act which becomes relevant. 14. Upon reappraisal of the entire evidence placed before us, we find that the learned trial Court has considered the material evidence and has given cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case. The alleged discrepancies relied upon by the appellants are primarily collateral or peripheral in nature and does not affect the core ingredient of the offence. 15. Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act prescribes stringent punishment of a minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, which can extend to 20 years with fine not less than one lakh rupees. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court, having regard to the quantity involved and the circumstances of the case, imposed rigorous imprisonment for 12 years along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- upon each appellant. The default sentence of one year's simple imprisonment for non-payment of fine also does not disclose any illegality warranting interference. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment Page No.# 19/19 dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong in NDPS Case No.06/2023 arising out of G.R. Case No.255/2022, convicting the appellants Md. Kamal Hussain (A-1), Md. Sagir Ahmed (A-2) and Md. Raqubul Hassan (A-3) under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, is hereby affirmed. The order dated 07.05.2025, whereby each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 (twelve) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, is also affirmed. The period of detention already undergone by the appellants shall be set off in accordance with law. 17. The Registry shall transmit the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court forthwith. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Kuntal Datta Digitally signed by Kuntal Datta Date: 2026.09.24 11:17:32 +05'30'