Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1414 (GAU)

Lalchhanchhuaha, S/o Malsawma v. State of Mizoram

2025-08-22

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 14.09.2022 and Sentence Order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.R. No. 56 of 2018 arising out of Excise & Narcotics Case No. N-172 of 2017 under Section 22(b)/22(c) of ND&PS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ND&PS Act), whereby the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 22(b) of the ND&PS Act, to undergo 10 (ten) months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, for another period of one month rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced under Section 22(c) of ND&PS Act, to undergo 10 (ten) years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default for another period of one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story is that a team of officials from the Excise Department, Mizoram, who were on duty at Hunthar Veng, Aizawl, upon noticing the accused/appellant standing on the roadside alongwith his Scooty, upon suspicion, conducted a search of the said Scooty in the presence of witnesses and recovered a large number of tablets and bottles consisting of (i) 16 bottles of Kuffcare-T containing codeine phosphate, (ii) 5 bottles of Cocas 500 grams of codeine phosphate, (iii) 205 tablets of Aprasil 26.2 grams of Alprazolam and (iv) 200 capsules of Tramadol (Fortaspas) upon search of the bag (rucksack) being carried on the scooter of the accused/appellant. 3. Accordingly, seizure list was prepared and the seized articles were produced before the Magistrate, alongwith application for certification as per Section 52-A of the ND&PS Act, 1985. Inventory of the seized articles was also prepared and after further steps in the investigation such as chemical examination of the samples of the seized articles and recording the statement of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer (I.O) submitted the charge-sheet under Section 22(b)/22(c) of the ND&PS Act, against the accused/appellant person. 4. The learned Trial Court after taking cognizance of the offences framed charge under Section 22(b)/22(c) of the ND&PS Act for violation of the provisions of Section 8-C of the ND&PS Act against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. 4. The learned Trial Court after taking cognizance of the offences framed charge under Section 22(b)/22(c) of the ND&PS Act for violation of the provisions of Section 8-C of the ND&PS Act against the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of the Trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses whereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC and subsequently, the defence adduced the evidence of two witnesses including that of the accused/appellant. 6. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 8. At this stage, it would be apposite to peruse the evidence on record. 9. PW-3 i.e. Sh. R. Lalrinsanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise and Narcotics, ANS, deposed that on 12.10.2017 at around 1:30 p.m., while performing duty on the road of Hunthar Veng, near Company Peng, the Excise Department Team apprehended the accused/appellant alongwith his Scooty on suspicion of possessing contraband drugs. After arranging civilian witnesses, they conducted search upon the said Scooty and recovered 16 bottles of Kuffcare-T and 5 bottles of Cocas containing codeine phosphate and also 205 tablets of Aprasil and 200 capsules of Tramadol. He seized the said contraband drugs and also arrested the accused/appellant and submitted his report of seizure and arrest to the Officer-in-Charge (O.C), ANS. He further deposed that the case I.O i.e., Smt. Zorammuani had already expired but having worked together for more than 10 years, PW-3 was well acquainted with her signature and accordingly, identified the same in the various documents that he exhibited including the seizure list, arrest memo, report of seizure and arrest, complaint sheet, FSL report, application for inventory for arrest and drawing of samples as well as inventory of seized articles, all of which PW-3 exhibited. During cross-examination, PW-3 reiterated that the seized articles were recovered under the seat of the Scooty. He further stated that the accused/appellant did not mention wherefrom he obtained the seized articles and stated that he did not prepare any grounds of belief under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. 10. During cross-examination, PW-3 reiterated that the seized articles were recovered under the seat of the Scooty. He further stated that the accused/appellant did not mention wherefrom he obtained the seized articles and stated that he did not prepare any grounds of belief under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. 10. PW-2 i.e. Constable C. Vanlalrosanga of E&N, ANS, deposed similarly as PW-3 and further stated that he saw some drug addicts around the accused/appellant when they spotted him standing on the roadside near the Scooty. He corroborated the version of PW-3. PW-2 further stated that the accused/appellant had stated before SI R. Lalrinsanga in his presence that he took the seized articles from Gilead Pharmacy, Hospital Road. He exhibited P-1, Seizure and Arrest Memo. During cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he did not see any letter issued by any superior officer to the seizing officer. He further stated that the seized articles were not recovered from the body of the accused/appellant and the accused/appellant was not brought before the Magistrate for the purpose of search. He could not recollect how many vials and tablets were seized by the seizing officer. PW-2 further stated that he signed upon the seizure list on the spot and not before the Court of the Magistrate. 11 . PW-1 i.e. Lalbuatsaiha deposed that on the day of occurrence, when he was in his residence, he was called by Excise personnel to witness the search and seizure of illicit drugs from one male person and at the place of occurrence, he saw the accused/appellant with the Excise personnel. The Excise personnel took the accused/appellant near Rev. Hnuna residence and in his presence, the Excise personnel recovered many tablets and some bottles of liquid drugs from the accused/appellant which were packed and sealed by the Excise personnel. Accordingly, he put his signature in the Seizure Memo as the witness and exhibited the same Seizure and Arrest Memo alongwith his signature thereon. During cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that he did not see the arrest of the accused/appellant or that he had deposed falsely. He stated that the accused/appellant had put all the seized articles inside the bag which he was carrying on the back of the Scooter. 12. During cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that he did not see the arrest of the accused/appellant or that he had deposed falsely. He stated that the accused/appellant had put all the seized articles inside the bag which he was carrying on the back of the Scooter. 12. PW-4 i.e. T. Lalhmachhuana was the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunglei, before whom the prayer for certification was made and he deposed before the Court with regard to the receipt of application from Sub Inspector Zorammuani, E & N for certifying the correctness of the inventory and drawing of samples. He deposed to the details of the inventory containing Alprazolam, Kuffcare, Cocas of quantity 26.2 grams, 1.6 kgs and 500 grams. He stated that he had compared the inventory of the seized articles with the seized articles produced before him and found the same to be correct. As per PW-4, 5 tablets of Alprazolam, one bottle of Kuffcare and one bottle of Cocas was taken as samples in his presence and four photographs of the seized articles were taken before him. He exhibited the application, inventory, list of samples and photographs. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that the seizure witnesses were not present at the time of comparison of the inventory with the seized articles and that he did not know whether or not the weighing machine was tested for its accuracy before weighing the seized articles in his presence. 13. From the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses discussed above, what is immediately noticeable is that there was not a single suggestion specifically to the effect that the seized articles were not recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant. Neither was there any suggestion that the seized articles were not prohibited items under the ND&PS Act which could not be possessed without a valid licence. Rather, the defence stand, as revealed in the statements of the accused/appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC is that the accused/appellant was indeed in possession of the seized articles but he was in such possession on account of the fact that he was working in a Pharmacy named Gilead Pharmacy. In Rafiq Ahmad @Rafiq Vs. Rather, the defence stand, as revealed in the statements of the accused/appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC is that the accused/appellant was indeed in possession of the seized articles but he was in such possession on account of the fact that he was working in a Pharmacy named Gilead Pharmacy. In Rafiq Ahmad @Rafiq Vs. State of U.P, reported in AIR 2011 SC 3114 , the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It is true that the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, cannot be the sole basis for conviction of the accused but certainly it can be a relevant consideration for the courts to examine, particularly when the prosecution has otherwise been able to establish the chain of evidence……” 14. To bolster the stand taken by the accused/appellant in his defence statement as above, he examined himself as a defence witness i.e., DW-1 and also examined another witness i.e., DW-2. 15. Deposing as DW-1, the accused/appellant’s Examination-in-Chief is as hereunder:- “1. That I was employed as a seller and distributor under Gilead Pharmacy, Hospital Road, Aizawl, Mizoram since 2011. 2. That the main work during my years of employment was to distribute a number of medicine to our clients as per the instruction of Gilead Pharmacy throughout Aizawl city including towns and cities in Mizoram. 3. That even on 12.10.2017 as per the instruction of my employer, I distribute several medicines at Hunthar Veng, Aizawl. And on my way, some person wave their hands and asked me if I had possessed illicit drug and I replied them in negative. And to my utter surprise, some police personnel (later 1 found out that they were excise personnel) apprehended me and arrested me for possessing illicit articles. Among the medicines I possesses, 16 bottles of Kuffcare, 5 bottles of Cocas and 205 tablets of appraisal and 200 capsules of Tramadol was seized by the excise personnel and the remaining medicines were handed over to my employer. i.e Gilead Pharmacy. 4. That it is pertinent to mention here that my employer at the time of incident had a valid general wholesale drug license and I was just working under the instruction and supervision of my employer Gilead Pharmacy. i.e Gilead Pharmacy. 4. That it is pertinent to mention here that my employer at the time of incident had a valid general wholesale drug license and I was just working under the instruction and supervision of my employer Gilead Pharmacy. And it is pertinent to mention here that I kept all the accounts and ready to show in this Hon'ble Court while I was working under Gilead Pharmacy.” During cross-examination by the prosecution, DW-1 denied a suggestion that he was not properly employed in Gilead Pharmacy prior to the occurrence. But he admitted that although he has stated that he possessed the seized articles as per instruction of his employer, his employer i.e. Gilead Pharmacy did not make any statement regarding the seized articles before the Excise personnel and that he had no documents to prove that he was employed in Gilead Pharmacy. He also admitted that the seized articles were in loose form and not in company packages and that he had no documents to prove that the said drugs seized by the Excise Personnel were meant for delivery to Mami Drug Store as claimed by him. 16. DW-2 i.e. Zoramthara, in his examination-in-chief claimed that he was employed as a seller and distributor under Gilead Pharmacy since 2012 to 2018 alongwith the accused/appellant and their main job was to distribute medicines as per the instruction of their employer to different drug stores throughout Mizoram. He stated that on 14.10.2017, the Excise personnel handed over several medicines to his employer and was surprised on finding that the accused/appellant was arrested in connection with possession of illicit drugs as, in his opinion, the accused/appellant is innocent and was only working under the instruction of the employer i.e., Gilead Pharmacy, which had a valid drug license at the time of the incident. During cross-examination, DW-2 could not say where the seized articles were to be delivered by the accused/appellant person and admitted that when drugs were ordered by the drug stores, they never delivered to them in loose form. Later on however, he stated that they used to deliver cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, Tramadol and Alprazolam in a loose form upon receiving order from a particular drug store but admitted that the same cannot be sold without a Doctor’s prescription. Later on however, he stated that they used to deliver cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, Tramadol and Alprazolam in a loose form upon receiving order from a particular drug store but admitted that the same cannot be sold without a Doctor’s prescription. His employer did not make any statement before the Excise personnel due to fear of cancellation of his license but did not know why his employer should harbor such fear. He also stated that the accused/appellant had taken out the blank form of cash memo when he was departing from Gilead Pharmacy at the relevant time. 17. Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned Judgment & Order is not sustainable on account of the various infirmities that beset the investigation of the case. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the Standing Order 1 of 89 issued by the Central Government submitted that the very sampling process undertaken by the I.O was totally faulty and in violation of the specific provisions of the Standing Order 1 of 89, inasmuch as the size of the samples drawn by the I.O was below the quantity recommended by the said Standing Order. The learned counsel has referred to the relevant provisions of the Standing Order requiring that the quantity required to be drawn from each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except opium, ganja and charas(hashish) and further, the seized drugs in packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample is drawn. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that as per the inventory and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the seized articles were not mixed up and the quantity of the samples drawn also did not meet the aforesaid criteria. 19. It is next contended that the seizure was made on 12.10.2017 and the case was registered on 13.10.2017 on which date, samples were also drawn and the same were sent to FSL on 16.10.2017 i.e., after a lapse of three days for which there is no sufficient explanation. 19. It is next contended that the seizure was made on 12.10.2017 and the case was registered on 13.10.2017 on which date, samples were also drawn and the same were sent to FSL on 16.10.2017 i.e., after a lapse of three days for which there is no sufficient explanation. There is no proof of proper custody of the seized articles from the time of seizure till the next day when it was produced before the Magistrate and thereafter till it was sent to FSL, inasmuch as no Malkhana register was produced to establish the safe custody of the seized articles. Therefore, on this ground alone, the investigation as well as the trial stands vitiated. 20. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant has relied upon the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Alamo Lotha vs. State of Assam, reported in (2013) 3 GLR 301, wherein it was held that the keeping of the seized contraband in safe custody from the time of seizure till production before the Magistrate and drawing, packeting and sealing of sample for sending it to FSL, is a statutorily cast duty of the O.C and he cannot escape from this duty and responsibility by merely showing that he produced the seized contraband and sent the sample to the FSL and that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce the Malkhana Register to show that it was kept in safe custody of the police. It is also submitted that the prosecution failed to examine the FSL Expert who submitted the chemical examination report which therefore, ought not to have been accepted by the learned Trial Court. 21. In Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1002 which was referred to in Alamo Lotha vs. State of Assam (Supra), it was held that although Section 55 of the ND&PS Act requiring the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to keep the seized article in safe custody was not mandatory, it also held that the I.O. cannot totally ignore this provision and failure in compliance with the same will have a bearing on appreciation of the evidence regarding arrest of the accused or seizure of the articles. 22 . 22 . Reliance has been placed on Hanif Khan Alias Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in (2020) 16 SCC 709, wherein it was held that presumption of culpable mental state provided under Section 35 and Section 54 of the ND&PS Act does not absolve a prosecution from establishing a prima facie case and it is only thereafter that the burden shifts to the accused. It is submitted that due to the procedural lapses committed by the investigating agency, there was failure on the part of the prosecution to definitively establish that the samples allegedly drawn and sent to the FSL were the same ones which were drawn from the articles allegedly seized by the Excise officials, in as much as prosecution had failed to establish the safe custody of the seized articles from the point of time of seizure till sending of the same to the FSL. 23 . Referring to the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Naveen Kumar and Another vs. Union of India reported in (2023) SCC Online GAU 502: (2023) 2 GLT 930, it is pointed out that in the said case, the High Court granted benefit of doubt to the accused persons for various reasons, one of which was that the Standing Order 1 of 1989 was not followed scrupulously nor the procedure under Section 52-A of the Act was followed as per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohanlal, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379 . 24 . Countering the aforesaid submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte submitted that the Standing Order 1 of 89 is merely a guideline and not a statute and therefore, violation of certain provisions thereof will not vitiate the investigation or trial. 25. It is further submitted that as per Section 293 Cr.PC, it is open for the learned Trial Court to accept the chemical examination report which was submitted by the Assistant Director of the FSL and particularly, since it was not disputed at the time of the Trial by the defence. It is further submitted that the seized samples were drawn and sealed before the learned Magistrate and the FSL also received the same in sealed condition as indicated in the exhibit P-4 FSL report itself. Hence, it was not necessary for the prosecution to produce the Malkhana Register. 26. It is further submitted that the seized samples were drawn and sealed before the learned Magistrate and the FSL also received the same in sealed condition as indicated in the exhibit P-4 FSL report itself. Hence, it was not necessary for the prosecution to produce the Malkhana Register. 26. The independent witness i.e., PW-1 had also deposed that the seized articles were packed and sealed in his presence at the time of seizure. List of samples drawn certified by the Magistrate also indicates that the seized articles were brought before the Magistrate with seals intact from which the samples were drawn and packed in his presence, submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 27. With regard to the issue of delay in sending the samples to FSL, the learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2015) 6 SCC 222 , wherein it was held at paragraphs 38 and 39 as follows:- “38. Another submission that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the seized articles were not sent immediately for chemical examination. The FSL report, Ext. P-14 dated 15-9-1986 states that a letter along with a sealed packet was received with seals intact. The said report further mentions that the packet was covered in white cloth and on opening of the packet, the examiner found a cylindrical tin and the substance on examination was found to be an opium having 1.44% morphine. The seal being intact, the description of the case number and the impression of seal having been fixed on memo of recovery, there is no reason or justification to discard the prosecution case on the ground of delay on this score. 39. In Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, a two-Judge Bench while dealing with the question of delay in sending the samples of opium to the FSL, opined that it was of no consequence, for the fact of the recovery of the said sample from the possession of the appellant had been proven and established by cogent and reliable evidence and that apart, it had also come in evidence that till the date of parcels of samples were received by the chemical examiner, the seal put on that parcel was intact. Under these circumstances, the Court ruled that the said facts clearly proves and establishes that there was no tampering with the aforesaid seal in the sample at any stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemical examination contained the same opium which was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The plea that there was 40 days' delay was immaterial and would not dent the prosecution case.” 28. In course of his rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Magistrate is silent on the aspect of sealing of the samples in his presence in as much as it is certified in the List of Samples Drawn that the seized articles were brought before him with seals intact from which the following samples were drawn and packed in his presence but, it nowhere states that the said samples were also sealed in the presence of the Magistrate before sending the same to FSL. Hence, there is no proof of sealing of samples before the Magistrate prior to sending the same to the FSL which gives rise to suspicion as to whether the samples drawn before the Magistrate were the ones which were actually sent to the FSL. It is lastly submitted that it is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove only certain aspects of the case but it is incumbent upon it to prove each and every step as being properly complied with in order to sustain a conviction. 29. In view of the various lapses and lacunae in the investigation, the impugned conviction cannot be sustained, submitted by learned counsel. 30. With regard to the admission of the appellant regarding possession of the articles recovered, it is submitted that the same is not sufficient in the eye of law to fasten guilt upon the accused/appellant and all the procedures detailed in the ND&PS Act are to be complied with in order for the prosecution to prove his case which the prosecution has failed to do. 31. Section 54 of the ND&PS Act imposes a reverse burden of proof upon the accused/appellant subject to establishment of the foundational facts by the prosecution. The prosecution is required to discharge the onus of proving that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/appellant whereafter only a reversal of onus takes effect. 31. Section 54 of the ND&PS Act imposes a reverse burden of proof upon the accused/appellant subject to establishment of the foundational facts by the prosecution. The prosecution is required to discharge the onus of proving that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/appellant whereafter only a reversal of onus takes effect. In this regard, several procedural safeguards have been incorporated in the ND&PS Act, in addition to those present in the general procedural laws, some of which are mandatory in nature while others are directory. The purpose of incorporating such safeguards is obviously to ensure that no person is falsely implicated in such serious offences carrying heavy penalties and therefore, strict compliance with most such provisions is insisted upon by the Courts. Lapses on the part of the investigating authority in adhering to such provisions, even in part, tend to create suspicion or doubts in the mind of the Court regarding the veracity of the prosecution case or induces it to believe that it would be unsafe to return a finding of guilt, given that two views on the matter are possible. But in the instant case, the material on record are such, that the necessity of insisting upon such strict compliance with the extant provisions of the ND&PS Act stands obviated in view of the very specific admissions made by the accused/appellant with regard to the fact of recovery of the seized articles from his conscious possession, that too, in the course of the trial itself, which has been adverted to in detail hereinbefore. The possession can be readily presumed to be a conscious one as the recovery of the contraband was made from the bag the accused/appellant was carrying in his Scooty and not from some secret chamber of a large vehicle and he described in his evidence each and every article which were admittedly found in the bag. 32. Thus, from the above, it is seen that the accused/appellant has very specifically admitted, in detail, to have been in possession of the same contraband that the Excise officials claim to have recovered from the accused/appellant. 32. Thus, from the above, it is seen that the accused/appellant has very specifically admitted, in detail, to have been in possession of the same contraband that the Excise officials claim to have recovered from the accused/appellant. It is for this reason that even though certain missing links and deficiencies in sampling have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant as adverted to hereinbefore, they pale into insignificance in the face of the own evidence and statements of the accused/appellant before the Court itself during the trial, which leaves no manner of doubt that the very same seized articles were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/appellant, which articles are admittedly covered by the prohibitory clauses of the ND&PS Act, under Section 8(c) thereof. Therefore, the initial burden of the prosecution to establish conscious possession stands discharged on account of the admission of the accused/appellant himself. 33. This brings us to the explanation set up by the accused/appellant to account for the possession of such contraband. As already discussed hereinbefore, it was at the end of the trial i.e. closure of prosecution evidence that the accused/appellant in his Statement of Defence mentioned about working in Gilead Pharmacy to account for his possession of the contraband. A specific question detailing all the seized articles was put to the accused/appellant, the possession of which he admitted to. He mentioned about a Note Book that he maintained which would affirm his employment in Gilead Pharmacy at the relevant time. But he could not produce the said Note Book which he claims to have himself maintained, nor could he produce any other document connecting him to Gilead Pharmacy and the owner thereof also did not support the claim of the accused/appellant. Had the accused/appellant been carrying out a legitimate activity of distributing/delivering the drugs under a valid license on behalf of his employer, there would have been no difficulty on the part of such employer to state the same before the I.O, which he admittedly did not as per version of DW-2. Had the accused/appellant been carrying out a legitimate activity of distributing/delivering the drugs under a valid license on behalf of his employer, there would have been no difficulty on the part of such employer to state the same before the I.O, which he admittedly did not as per version of DW-2. The accused/appellant claimed that his employer had a valid general wholesale Drugs License and that he was only working under the instructions of his employer but no such license was produced in Court, nor could he place before the Court any books of accounts which he claimed to have maintained while working in Gilead Pharmacy and which he claimed he was ready to produce. Accused/appellant also admitted that the seized drugs were in loose form and not in company packaging whereas, DW-2 stated that they never delivered them in loose form, although subsequently he stated the opposite, which is hardly believable. This strongly points against the probability that the accused/appellant was engaged in the bonafide and legitimate distribution or delivery of drugs. What further erodes such a probability is the statement of DW-2 that their employer did not make any statement before the I.O due to fear of cancellation of his drugs license, which points towards the illegitimate nature of the transaction in question, even assuming that the accused/appellant was employed with the said Pharmacy and was carrying out his employer’s instructions. Being employed in a pharmacy, as claimed, the accused/appellant could not have been unaware about the illegal nature of the work and cannot shift the liability to his employer. The concept of Respondent Superior or what is known as the principle of vicarious liability has extremely limited application in criminal law. A transporter cannot escape liability for possession of such substances no matter that the supplier may be his employer. 34. From the above, it is evident that the accused/appellant has failed to set up a credible defence to account for his possession of the contraband even on a preponderance of probability. There being no dispute with regard to the quantities of contraband substances involved, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 22(b)/22(c) of the ND&PS Act and the sentences imposed are the minimum prescribed by law. 35. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court stands affirmed. There being no dispute with regard to the quantities of contraband substances involved, the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 22(b)/22(c) of the ND&PS Act and the sentences imposed are the minimum prescribed by law. 35. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court stands affirmed. The appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is consequently dismissed. 36. Send back the Trial Court Record.