Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 468 (GAU)

Lalsangvunga v. State of Mizoram

2021-08-05

NELSON SAILO

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. This order will dispose both the criminal appeal as well as the interlocutory application filed by the applicant-appellant 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.3.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘ND&PS Act’) Aizawl Judicial District, Champhai in SC No. 267/2018 arising out of Crl. Tr. No. 1489/2018 in connection with Champhai Excise & Narcotics Case No. 156/2018 dated 27.6.2018 under section 22(b) of the ND&PS Act by which the appellant was convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of 1 week vide order dated 11.3.2020. The interlocutory application is filed for suspension of the impugned judgment and order and the sentence imposed upon him. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.6.2018 Mr. B. Lalengmawia, Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Excise & Narcotics Department, Champhai recovered/seized 8.04 grams of alprazolam tablets (70 tablets) from the possession of the appellant. Pursuant thereto, the officer concerned submitted a report as per section 57 of the ND&PS Act and produced him before the Officer in-Charge, Champhai Excise & Narcotics Station. Accordingly, a case was registered against the appellant as already reflected herein above and Mr. J. Laltlanmawia, S.I. of Excise & Narcotics Department, Champhai took up the investigation. During the investigation, he examined the seizing officer as well as the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also drew samples from the contraband substance before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, District Court, Champhai and sent the same for chemical analysis in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Aizawl. On analysis, the contraband tablets revealed that they contained alprazolam and the Investigating Officer (case IO), upon finding a prima facie case under the aforesaid section of law against the appellant, submitted the complaint sheet before the court. 4. Consequently, a formal charge was framed against the appellant under section 22(b) of the ND&PS Act and to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 3 prosecution witnesses out of the 4 listed prosecution witnesses while the defence did not examine any defence witness. The appellant on being examined under section 313 of the Cr.PC denied seizure of the contraband tablets from his possession. During the trial, the prosecution examined 3 prosecution witnesses out of the 4 listed prosecution witnesses while the defence did not examine any defence witness. The appellant on being examined under section 313 of the Cr.PC denied seizure of the contraband tablets from his possession. He also denied that the same belong to him. Thereupon, the learned trial court upon hearing the rival parties passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment with fine as already stated herein above. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this court through the instant appeal. 5. Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the FIR dated 27.6.2018 as well as the deposition of PW-3 submits that section 42 of the ND&PS Act was violated by the investigating authority, as no information was put down in writing that there was a reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person that narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance punishable under the ND&PS Act has been committed. Referring to the deposition of PW-1, who is a seizure witness, the teamed counsel submits that the appellant was detained by the local non-Governmental Organization (‘NGO’), i.e., the Young Mizo Association (‘YMA’) from 5.00 p.m. till the Excise party came and arrested him around at 6.30 p.m. He submits that the YMA is not authorized to detain any person or conduct checking. The power of entry, search, seizure and arrest rests only with the authorities referred to in section 42 of the ND&PS. As such, section 42 of the said Act has been violated. 6. The learned counsel further submits that as per the list of samples drawn on 27.6.2018, only one sample was drawn, i.e., JL/18/CPI-24 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai, Mizoram. However, as per the report of the FSL dated 24.7.2018, as many as 7 samples were examined which, of course, includes the lone sample taken on 27.6.2018. As there is no explanation as to how and when the 6 additional samples were collected, the FSL report cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. The learned counsel also submits that from the FSL report dated 24.7.2018, it can be seen that the sample was sent to the FSL on 28.6.2018 but the same was received only on 5.7.2018, i.e., after 7 days. The learned counsel also submits that from the FSL report dated 24.7.2018, it can be seen that the sample was sent to the FSL on 28.6.2018 but the same was received only on 5.7.2018, i.e., after 7 days. There is no explanation or mention as to who was in custody of the sample and why it took 7 days time to reach the FSL. Under the circumstance, the possibility of the sample being tampered with cannot be ruled out and for this reason, the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt and the impugned order of conviction and sentence set aside. 7. Mr. A.R. Malhotra also submits that PW-4, who was the case IO, while deposing as one of the prosecution witness, exhibited many documents which include, the detail particulars of the appellant, his signature, list of samples, inventory of the seized drugs, FSL report, etc., but, however, none of the exhibited documents have been marked as an exhibit by the trial court as can be seen from the paper book. Therefore, even on this ground, the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside and quashed. The learned counsel in support of his submission relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 . (ii) Basu Dev Ghosh v. State of Assam, (2017) 3 GLT 528. (iii) Bhim Ram v. State of Assam, (2012) 1 GLT 416. (iv) Sh. Lalmawia v. State of Mizoram, (2019) 5 GLT 828. 8. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is no violation of section 42 and section 50 of the ND&PS Act, inasmuch as, the YMA had only stopped the appellant. There was neither any entry into building or conveyance nor was there any search conducted on the person of the appellant. In fact, it was the appellant himself who took out the contraband tablets from his pocket. In this connection, she refers to the statements made by PW-1 and PW-3 during their cross-examination. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that the appellant is a habitual offender and was previously on two occasions, convicted for his involvement in similar offences. In fact, it was the appellant himself who took out the contraband tablets from his pocket. In this connection, she refers to the statements made by PW-1 and PW-3 during their cross-examination. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that the appellant is a habitual offender and was previously on two occasions, convicted for his involvement in similar offences. She submits that this can be seen from the examination of the accused-appellant under section 313 of the Cr.PC. She, therefore, submits that under the facts and circumstances, this court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order and dismiss the appeal. 10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the LCR requisitioned from the trial court. 11. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention herein that this court on 27.4.2021, upon noticing that the documents said to be exhibited by the prosecution witnesses were not marked as exhibits on the body of the documents, requisitioned the original LCR and fixed the matter again on 12.5.2021. However, the matter was listed again only on 22.6.2021 and on finding that the original LCR had not been received, court directed that a reminder be sent to the trial court concerned for transmitting the original records immediately and if for any reason, the same could not be done, the an explanation for the same should be submitted. 12. Consequently, the original LCR was transmitted to the Registry by the trial court vide a covering Letter dated 2.7.2021. However, this court on going through the same, noticed variation between the original order-sheet and the photocopy of the order-sheet that was earlier transmitted to the Registry of this court vide covering letter dated 18.6.2020. Further, the documents furnished earlier vide covering letter dated 18.6.2020 which were not marked as exhibits were all marked as exhibits in the original case record. As such, this court vide order dated 13.7.2021 directed the Registrar to take up the matter with the court concerned and ask for an explanation on the variation found. 13. Responding to the explanation called, the trial court vide communication dated 19.7.2021 stated that the matter pertained to a time before her appointment as the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Champhai. 13. Responding to the explanation called, the trial court vide communication dated 19.7.2021 stated that the matter pertained to a time before her appointment as the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Champhai. On making an enquiry into the matter, she found that on 18.6.2020, as per the roster prepared, 2 staffs of the Addl District, & Sessions Judge, Champhai, employed on contract basis were on-duty and they were instructed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge to make a photocopy of the case record. In the process, one of the staff accidentally spilled tea over the original order-sheet and the then Addl. District & Sessions Judge, in good faith and for the interest of justice, reconstructed all the pages of the order-sheet under his signature. To reconstruct the order-sheet, the presiding Judge corresponded with the court diary and then directed the staff to carefully make photocopy of the reconstructed order-sheet and to place the same in the original case record. A photocopy of the newly reconstructed order-sheet was then sent to the Registry of this court on 18.6.2020. 14. The trial court has also explained that on making further enquiry, she found that on 18.6.2020 according to the daily roster detailment, the record-keeper was absent and the staff concerned conveyed to her over phone that he did not actually spill tea over the order-sheet but misplaced it somewhere. On being asked as to why it took him so long to make photocopy of the records, he invented the story of tea being spilled over the order-sheet. He later on found the original order-sheet and replaced it with the reconstructed order-sheets in the original case record, without informing anyone and submitted the same to the record-keeper. 15. With regard to the exhibited documents not being marked as exhibits, the explanation of the learned trial court is to the effect that the documents earlier sent vide forwarding letter dated 18.6.2020 were only photocopies of the extra/spare documents submitted to the trial court and, therefore, they were not marked as exhibits. Be that as it may, we shall deal with the explanation given in the later part of this order. 16. In order to find out the sustainability or otherwise of the judgment and order under challenge, let us examine the evidence led before the trial court. 17. PW-1, Mr. Be that as it may, we shall deal with the explanation given in the later part of this order. 16. In order to find out the sustainability or otherwise of the judgment and order under challenge, let us examine the evidence led before the trial court. 17. PW-1, Mr. F. Lalrinmuana in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knew the appellant and that he was a known habitual offender/dealer in illegal selling of heroin and other contraband substances. He was a drug peddler entirely depending on the nefarious selling of heroin for his livelihood. He had been warned by the Electric Veng Branch YMA not to engage in selling of such contraband substances but he never stopped selling the same. He was previously arrested in similar nature of offence. On 26.6.2018, at around 6:30 p.m., the Excise & Narcotics personnel arrested him after recovering 70 tablets of alprazolam from his possession at Tuipui Bazaar. He, therefore, put his signature on the copy of the seizure and arrest memo as a witness and exhibited his signature as Exhibit P-2(b). 18. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that it was a fact that the appellant was arrested at around 5.00 p.m. and it was also a fact that YMA Kumpuan Duty members while performing duty at Tuipui Bazaar area on seeing the appellant, whom they knew to be a well-known habitual offender, detained him and called the Excise Party. He further stated that he does not remember as to whether the Excise Officer and his team wore uniform. He further stated that body search was not conducted on the appellant and that he was requested to produce or take out any substance he was keeping with him. When the Excise Officer and his team arrived, the appellant was still keeping the contraband substance in his hand and they did not conduct body search on the appellant. 19. PW-3, S.I.B. Lalengmawia of the Excise Department in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knows the appellant and on 26.6.2018, at around 6.30 p.m., he received a phone call from Sub-Headquarters, YMA Kumpuan Sub-Committee informing about the detention of the appellant at Tuipui Bazaar in connection with illegal possession of certain contraband substance. He and his team then rushed to the place of occurrence and seized 70 tablets of alprazolam from the possession of the appellant. He and his team then rushed to the place of occurrence and seized 70 tablets of alprazolam from the possession of the appellant. He prepared a seizure and arrest memo on the spot and the members of the YMA were made seizure witnesses. He submitted a report about the seizure of the drugs and his arrest to the Officer in-Charge of Champhai Excise and Narcotics Station. He also furnished a copy of the seizure and arrest memo to the appellant on the spot. He exhibited the seizure arrest memo, his signature, his report of seizure and arrest and his signature as Exhibit P-2, P-2(a), P-3 and P-3(a), respectively. 20. In his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that it was a fact that he did not know whether the appellant obtained any permission for possessing the seized drugs. As per the information he received from the YMA, they said that they detained the appellant due to strong suspicion that he was possessing contraband substance. PW-3 further stated that he did not put in writing the information received by him from the YMA and likewise, he did not record his grounds of belief. He also stated that they were in uniform and as for the seized drug, i.e., alprazolam, the same was a good medicine for epilepsy but often used for intoxication. The tablets were counted and the weight measured on the spot. He also stated that he did not accept the suggestion that the accused was keeping the said drug for his own medication. 21. PW-4, Mr. J. Laltlanmawia, S.I. of Excise and also the case IO in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows the accused-person. The case was endorsed to him for investigation the next day after the appellant was arrested in connection with the recovery of 70 tablets of alprazolam from his possession on 26.6.2018. He produced the appellant and the contrabarid substance before the District Court on the day he took up the case for drawing samples and for his judicial remand. The appellant admitted that the contraband substance was recovered from his possession and he recorded his statements. He also prepared his detailed particulars on the same day. After drawing samples, he prepared test memo and handed it over to the dealing clerk of their office for sending the same to FSL, Aizawl. After that, he recorded statements of the witnesses through mobile phone on 3.8.2018. He also prepared his detailed particulars on the same day. After drawing samples, he prepared test memo and handed it over to the dealing clerk of their office for sending the same to FSL, Aizawl. After that, he recorded statements of the witnesses through mobile phone on 3.8.2018. He received the FSL report confirming that the seized contraband substance was alprazolam. The statement of the accused and the witnesses along with FSL report clearly revealed the commission of an offence by the appellant under section 8 of the ND&PS Act. Therefore, having found the prima facie case against the appellant under section 22(b) of the ND&PS Act, he submitted the complaint sheet before the court. PW-4 exhibited the detail particulars of the accused, his signature, application for disposal of the contraband substances copy of list of samples, copy of inventory of the seized drugs, copy of the FSL report, photo of the seized substance, photo showing sample being drawn from the seized substance in front of the CJM, Champhai and a copy of the complaint sheet as Exhibits P-4, P-4(a), P-5, P-6, P-7, P-8, P-9, P-10 and P-11, respectively. 22. In his cross-examination, PW-4 amongst others stated that it was a fact that the seizing officer at the time of preparation of seizure memo, etc., obtained the signature of the seizure witnesses on a blank paper. During investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses on the said copy of the blank paper after talking to the witnesses over mobile phone and after certifying the statements recorded were true to the best of their knowledge of the case, he read out the statements to them over mobile phone. The witnesses themselves did not read out their statements. PW-4 also stated that it was a fact that the contents of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 were written by him. That in absence of seizure witnesses, he wrote down the main contents of Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-3. The seizing officer did not submit to him a copy of the information in writing. On being re-examined by the prosecutions' counsel, PW-4 stated that it was a fact that he wrote down the contents of Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-3 as per the dictation of the seizing officer. The names of witnesses and their signatures which appeared in Exhibit P-2 were already obtained by the seizing officer on the spot. On being re-examined by the prosecutions' counsel, PW-4 stated that it was a fact that he wrote down the contents of Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-3 as per the dictation of the seizing officer. The names of witnesses and their signatures which appeared in Exhibit P-2 were already obtained by the seizing officer on the spot. After he recorded Exhibit P-3 as per the dictation of the seizing officer, he gave his signature on the bottom of the said copy. 23. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it may be seen that the appellant who was said to be a habitual offender or dealer in the selling of illegal contraband substances was detained by the local NGO on 26.6.2018 on suspicion that he was carrying contraband substances. According to the PW-1, body search was not conducted upon the appellant and he was only asked to take out whatever substance he was keeping with him. After he was detained in such a manner, the Excise & Narcotics Department were informed and they arrived on the spot and arrested the appellant after seizing 70 tablets of alprazolam from his possession. PW-3 in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that the information he received from the YMA was not put down in writing. He also did not record any grounds of belief before arresting and seizing the contraband substance from the appellant. 24. For better understanding of the issue under consideration, it may be gainful to abstract section 42 and section 43 of the ND&PS Act as below- “42. He also did not record any grounds of belief before arresting and seizing the contraband substance from the appellant. 24. For better understanding of the issue under consideration, it may be gainful to abstract section 42 and section 43 of the ND&PS Act as below- “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.-(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under subsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place. - Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company.” 25. From the above abstract, it may be seen that section 42 of the ND&PS Act deals with the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. The authorized persons mentioned therein upon having reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that certain narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance punishable under the Act has been committed may enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place and in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry and also detain, search and arrest any person upon having reason to believe that he or she had committed an offence punishable under the Act. On the other hand, section 43 of the ND&PS Act deals with the power of seizure and arrest in public place. On the other hand, section 43 of the ND&PS Act deals with the power of seizure and arrest in public place. Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under the Act has been committed, etc. Also, detain, search and arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under the Act. 26. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was arrested at Tuipui Bazar at around 6.30 p.m. on 26.6.2018 due to alleged recovery of 70 tablets of Alprazolam tablets from his possession. The place of arrest, i.e., Tuipui Bazar, admittedly is a public place. There was no entry into building, conveyance or place and, therefore, it is section 43 of the ND&PS Act which will be attracted. Further, it is also in evidence that although the appellant was detained by the YMA, body search was not conducted on his person. Likewise, the Excise personnel on arriving at the spot did not conduct search on his person. As per the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the appellant on being asked, he himself took out the tablets he was keeping in his pocket. This piece of evidence has neither been denied nor falsified by the defence. When search was not conducted upon the appellant, his detention alone while awaiting the arrival of the Excise personnel who were informed over phone, in my considered view, cannot be the basis to dislodge the prosecution's case on recovery of Alprazolam tablets from his possession. Further, from a plain reading of section 43 of the ND&PS Act, it may be seen that it does not provide that the information received has to be taken down in writing or reasons have to be recorded before proceeding with search, seizure and arrest. Such requirement will be there in case of an entry into a building conveyance or place which is not a public place as provided in section 42 of the same Act. As already noticed herein above, the appellant was not searched either by the YMA or the Excise personnel. Such requirement will be there in case of an entry into a building conveyance or place which is not a public place as provided in section 42 of the same Act. As already noticed herein above, the appellant was not searched either by the YMA or the Excise personnel. The evidence of PW-3 importantly is also to the effect that he submitted a report about the seizure of the drugs and arrest of the appellant to the Officer in-Charge of Champhai Excise and Narcotics Station. He also furnished a copy of the seizure and arrest memo to the appellant on the spot. He exhibited the seizure arrest memo, his signature, his report of seizure and arrest and his signature as Exhibit P-2, P-2(a), P-3 and P-3(a), respectively in view of the above finding, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant which is particularly on the issue of violation of section 42 of the ND&PS Act are found to be not attracted to the case at hand: 27. Moving on to the FSL Report dated 24.7.2018 which was exhibited by PW-4 as Exhibit P-8, it may be seen that as many as 7 samples appears to have been examined and the Report says that all the samples were found to contain alprazolam. The fact, however, remains that as per the list of sample drawn before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champhai Mizoram on 27.6.2018, only one sample, i.e., JL/18/CPI-24 was drawn. There is no mention or any indication about any other samples being taken in the said list. Under such circumstance, without there being any explanation on this aspect of the matter, I am of the considered view that the FSL report dated 24.7.2018 cannot be relied upon for establishing the charge against the appellant. 28. Another important aspect of the matter which has drawn the attention of this court is that the sample was sent to the FSL vide forwarding letter dated 28.6.2018 but, however, the sample was received by the FSL only on 5.7.2018, i.e., after about 7 days. There is no explanation for the delay and also under whose custody it was kept before it reached the FSL. This court in Lalmawia (supra) relying upon Bhim Ram (supra) held that offence committed under the ND&PS Act is always treated as grievous and serious. There is no explanation for the delay and also under whose custody it was kept before it reached the FSL. This court in Lalmawia (supra) relying upon Bhim Ram (supra) held that offence committed under the ND&PS Act is always treated as grievous and serious. The more stringent the provisions of conviction the more rigorous will be the investigation and trial. The evidence on record did not show that the samples drawn from the seized contraband substance was put under safe custody before it reached the FSL and, therefore, the appellant was found entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Also, the Apex Court in Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 3 SCC 28 : AIR 2001 SC 1002 in the given facts of that case held that there was no evidence that the seized articles were kept in the malkhana, inasmuch as, the prosecution never produced the malkhana register to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till the sample packets were sent for chemical examination. It was, therefore, not proved that the seals found on the samples packets were the same with the sample seal and under such circumstance, the appellant were found to be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 29. Further, it is surprising to notice that PW-4 during his cross examination stated that - “It is a fact that the seizing officer at the time of preparation of seizure memo, etc., obtained signature of the seizure witnesses on a blank copy of paper”. Again on being re-examined, he stated that -“It is a fact that I wrote down the contents of Exhibit P-2 and Exhibit P-3 as per the dictation of the seizing officer. However, names of witnesses appeared in exhibit P-2 with their signature was already obtained by the seizing officer on the spot”. PW-1 and PW-2 are the cited seizure witnesses of the prosecution and it was only PW-1 who was examined during trial. In absence of any evidence contrary to what PW-4 stated as above, the evidence of PW-1 is found to have lent no credibility to the case of the prosecution. 30. Therefore, upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has only failed to prove the case against the appellant with proof beyond any reasonable doubt and the appellant found entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 30. Therefore, upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has only failed to prove the case against the appellant with proof beyond any reasonable doubt and the appellant found entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant is directed to be released and set at liberty unless he is wanted in connection with any other case. 31. Now, coming to the variations/dissimilarities found between the photocopy of the LCR sent initially and the original sent subsequently, what can be noticed is that if the order sheets were indeed reconstructed by corresponding the same to the court Diary, at least the court dates in both the reconstructed and original order sheets should have been similar. Surprisingly, most of the dates do not tally with each other and are different. Further, the various court dates written in the file cover of the case record are also not the same with the dates available in the order sheet. As for the unmarked exhibited documents initially sent to this court, it only appears that clear and proper instructions have not been given to the staff concerned as to how the records requisitioned are to be prepared and sent. This court is, therefore, constraint to observe that due care has not been taken by the trial court concerned in dealing with and maintaining the case record. It should be kept in mind that in the exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction, the court concerned is required to examine and appreciate the evidence on record and to be able to do that, the LCR has to be in order and properly maintained. It may be noted that pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court on 25.4.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 1375-1376 of 2013, the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to direct that whenever the trial court record is summoned by the High Court while exercising appellate/revisional jurisdiction, the trial court concerned is to send photocopy/scanned copy of the record while retaining the original unless, the original record is specifically called for. This direction was notified by the Registrar General of this court vide Order No. 21 dated 22.5.2018. This direction was notified by the Registrar General of this court vide Order No. 21 dated 22.5.2018. Therefore, in view of the above notification, it is all the more important that whenever LCRs are requisitioned, clear and legible photocopy/scanned copy of the original LCR should be sent and not a compilation of documents, comprising of available extra copies with photo copies of the rest. Due care has to be taken while making photocopies of the original records. If the exact and precise photocopy of the original is not sent, the same is surely to affect the outcome of the case and lead to failure or miscarriage of justice. 32. What may follow after the above observation could be anyone's guess but having regard to the outcome of the appeal on merit amongst others, this court would not like to travel beyond what has already been observed and expressed for now. However, in view of the seriousness of the issue, it is hereby provided that henceforth, all the trial courts shall take proper and due care in the maintenance of the case record and also importantly, in the preparation and sending of photocopy/scanned copy of the case record whenever the same is requisitioned. It should be ensured that copy of the LCR prepared is the same and identical to the original in all respect. 33. Registry shall send a copy of this order to the learned District & Sessions Judges of Aizawl and Lunglei District for onward circulation to the courts under their jurisdiction. Registry to send back the original LCR but before doing so, let a photocopy of the same be made and retained in the file. 34. With the above observation and direction, both the appeal and the interlocutory application are disposed of.