JUDGMENT : Rajesh Mazumdar, J. This criminal appeal was heard extensively on 13.11.2025 and the judgment was reserved. 2. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P for the State. 3. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment & order dated 12.03.2024 passed by Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram. Brief facts: 4. The brief facts leading to the Trial of the appellant in connection with SR No. 236 of 2022 a/o Crl. Tr. No. 1729/2022 u/s 21(C)/29 of ND&PS Act, 1985 is that on 05.08.2022 reliable information was received by ASI PC Vanlalruata of Spl. Narcotic PS, CID (Crime) Aizawl, Mizoram that some unknown person(s) were strongly suspected of commission of offences punishable under the ND &PS Act, 1985 at Saron Veng, Alzawi, Mizoram. He reduced the information in writing and submitted to the Officer-in-charge Special Narcotic PS. On reaching the reported place i.e Ch. Chhunga Road, Saron Veng, Aizawl, the suspected person Lalneihsiami was found on the road side and she denied possession of any contraband articles. When he asked whether the three paper cartons of E Lan liquid detergent soap containers (yellow colour) lying on the road side belongs to her or not, she admitted that it belongs to her and which was handed over to her, by an unknown male person who fled away. As the place was a public place and crowded, she and the suspected contraband articles were shifted to a nearby corridor. After following all the necessary procedure for entry, search and arrest, accused Lalneihsiami (hereinafter referred to as appellant) was arrested and charged u/s 21(c)/29 of ND&PS Act, 1985 on the same day at 11:55 P.M for illegal possession of 518 grams of Heroin which were kept in 35 E Lan Liquid detergent soap container (yellow colour) wrapped in black polythene adhered by cello tape. Thereafter, another person alleged to have been involved in this instant case was located and identified as Lalsangliana (hereinafter referred to as co- accused) by obtaining CCTV Footage and CDR of the arrested person. The co- accused was arrested on 01.09.2022 at 04:30 P.M while he was in 'Home' of Operation Kingdom Ministry at Sakawrtuichhun. The seized contraband drug was sent to FSL and it was confirmed that the said drugs is heroin. The co- accused was arrested on 01.09.2022 at 04:30 P.M while he was in 'Home' of Operation Kingdom Ministry at Sakawrtuichhun. The seized contraband drug was sent to FSL and it was confirmed that the said drugs is heroin. As a prima facie case u/s 21(c)/29 for violation of section 8(c) of ND&PS Act, 1985 was found well established against the appellant and the co-accused, the Investigation Officer submitted Charge-sheet against both. The Trial: 5. On 06.03.2023, charges were framed and read out to the accused, 6 PWs led evidence for prosecution and the accused/appellant herein was examined under the provision of section 313 Cr. P.C on 12.10.2023. The accused also adduced evidence as DWs. Findings of the Trial Court: 6. The learned Trial Court held that there were no irregularities in the proceedings which could afford grounds for acquittal of the appellant and the co-accused. The seized articles was recovered from public place at Ch. Chhunga Road, Saron Veng, Aizawl by complying with the requisite procedure of law by arranging two civilian witnesses. The Trial Court proceeded to consider whether the accused persons could be held guilty for illegal possession of heroin so as to attract the ingredients of Section 21(c)/29 of ND & PS Act, 1985. The Trial Court observed that the Prosecution Witness No.1 in his evidence stated that information was received from reliable person that some unknown person(s) were strongly suspected of possessing contraband drugs at Saron Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram. The suspected person was found on the road side at CH. Chhunga road, Saron Veng, Aizawl. On asking her, she denied of possessing any contraband drugs, but when asked whether three paper cartons of E Lan liquid detergent soap container (yellow color) lying on the road side belongs to her or not, she admitted that they belonged to her. Two independent witnesses PW No. 2 & 3 also corroborated the same. In fact, according to the Trial Court, nothing had come on evidence to show that, at that time, any other person was present at the scene of occurrence who could be presumed to be the owner of the seized articles. After considering all the evidences on record and relying on decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant. After considering all the evidences on record and relying on decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt as against the appellant. The Trial Court found that there is nothing on record to show that the co- accused was engaged with the appellant to abet or conspire together to commit the offences under the ND&PS Act. The learned Trial Court was of the view that the circumstances and evidence adduced by the Prosecution did not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the co-accused. As a result, the learned Trial Court found the appellant Lalneihsiami guilty of offence charged against u/s 21(c)/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and convicted her. The co-accused Lalsangllana was acquitted of the charge under Section 21(c)/29 of ND&PS Act. 7. As the appellant herein had been convicted, the sentence was pronounced on 14.03.2024. 8. Though several procedural lapses had been sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same had received stiff objection at the hands of the learned Add. P.P. Procedural lapses in the arrest, the seizure, the preparation of seizure list, indexing and weighing of sample, production of the seized article during Trial, non-examination of FSL expert and the non-exhibit of the malkhana register etc. are few of the grounds which the learned counsel for the appellant emphasized upon to bring home his submissions to support interference in the impugned order of the learned Trial Court. The learned Addl. P.P, had, through her submissions, countered the procedural flaws pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following citation to buttress his arguments; (i) Kalicharan -vs- State of U.P , reported in 2023 (Vol.2) SCC 583 (ii) Ismailkhan Aiyubkhan Pathan -vs- State of Gujarat , reported in 2000 (Vol. 10) SCC 257 (iii) Vijay Pandey -vs- State of U.P , reported in 2019 (Vol. 18) SCC 215 (iv) Kriti Pal -vs- State of West Bengal , reported in 2015 (Vol.11) SCC 178 (para 33) (v) Noor Aga - vs - State of Punjab, reported in 2008 (Vol. 16) SCC 417 The learned Addl. P.P referred to the case of State of Punjab -vs- Makhan Chand, reported in 2004 (Vol. 3) SCC 453 (para-4). 18) SCC 215 (iv) Kriti Pal -vs- State of West Bengal , reported in 2015 (Vol.11) SCC 178 (para 33) (v) Noor Aga - vs - State of Punjab, reported in 2008 (Vol. 16) SCC 417 The learned Addl. P.P referred to the case of State of Punjab -vs- Makhan Chand, reported in 2004 (Vol. 3) SCC 453 (para-4). This Court noticed that, in fact, the malkhana register was not exhibited during the Trial, though the learned Addl. P.P has stated that the same was a part of record before the Trial Court and that this ground was not relied upon before it. Be that as it may, this Court has perused the TCR and has given due consideration to the impugned judgment. On a careful analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that the conscious possession of the contraband by the petitioner had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. PW-1 i.e the seizing officer in his evidence had stated that he had been accompanied by two civilians witnesses when he approached the suspect and thereafter, the suspect had identified herself. He stated that, in the presence of the aforesaid two witness, the suspect had denied possession of contraband drugs and on being asked whether “3” cartons of soap container lying on the road belong to her or not”, the suspect had stated that it belonged to her. In his cross-examination, the witnesses had stated that seized article was lying on the road side and the distance between the seized article and the accused was around 100 ft. In contrast to this, PW-2, who was one of the civilian witnesses and who was allegedly present during the seizure, has stated that she was informed about the apprehension of the suspect and when she went to the place of occurrence she saw the suspect along with Police personnel and beside the suspect, there was one cartoon box. The witness in his cross- examination has stated that he did not know the owner of the carton box. This contradicted the evidence of the PW-1, who had stated that the suspect had admitted to the possession of the carton box in the presence of this civilian witnesses. The witness in his cross- examination has stated that he did not know the owner of the carton box. This contradicted the evidence of the PW-1, who had stated that the suspect had admitted to the possession of the carton box in the presence of this civilian witnesses. Again the PW-2 does not say that she had accompanied the seizing authority when they had approached the suspect, rather she asserted that she was called to the place of occurrence after the suspect had been apprehended. The PW-2 referred to “1” carton box beside the accused while the PW-1 referred to “3” carton boxes which were lying about 100 ft. away from the suspect. The PW-2 has also stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding the involvement of the suspect in possession of seized article except what was told by the Police to him. Similar is the position of the evidence given by the PW-3 who was also produced as a seizure witness. Thus from the evaluation of the evidence given by the PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3, it appears that the prosecution could not drive home evidence to indicate possession of the carton box/boxes by the accused/appellant. Her alleged admission of “ownership” was asserted only by the PW-1, who referred “3” cartoons lying 100 ft. away from her, while the PW-2 & PW-3 do not indicate that the appellant had admitted possession of any carton and have asserted that they were called only after the accused/appellant was apprehended. Another aspect which was noticed by this Court is that the Trial Court has noted that two independent witnesses have corroborated the evidence of PW-1, to the extent that the 3 cartons lying on the road side belonged to her. In the foregoing paragraphs, this Court had already observed that they did not corroborate the evidence of PW-1, rather they contradicted his statement. The learned Trial Court had thereafter noted that “In fact, nothing has come on evidence to show that, at that time, any other person was present at the scene of occurrence who could be presumed to be the owner of the seized article”. This assumption is contrary to the evidence led by the PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. PW-1 had categorically stated that the place was a public place and was crowded. This assumption is contrary to the evidence led by the PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. PW-1 had categorically stated that the place was a public place and was crowded. PW-2 had categorically stated that “since the P.O. was crowded to conduct necessary steps, the police personnel brought accused Lalneihsiami with her carton box to the nearby verandah of one house and we accompanied them”. PW-3 had also stated that “since the P.O. was crowded to conduct necessary steps, the police personnel brought accused Lalneihsiami with her carton box to the nearby verandah of one house and we accompanied them”. Evaluated in the correct prospective, the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses would indicate that the place of seizure was as a crowded area and therefore, the assumption made by the Trial Court about the absence of “any other person at the place of occurrence who can be presumed the owner of the contraband” is not based on the evidence led by the PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. This Court has already noticed that the malkhana register was not produced during the trial. The independent witnesses do not support the story sought to be put forward by the seizing authority. The connection between the recovered contraband and its possession by the accused/appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt since the accused/appellant has not admitted the possession of the carton box in the presence of the independent witnesses. No evidence has been brought on record to justify or explain the contradiction in the statement made by the PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3. The assumption made by the Trial Court are also not supported by the evidence on record. Since this Court has found that the seized contraband drugs could not be connected to conscious possession by the appellant herein beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is not taking up the other grounds projected by the counsel for the appellant and as opposed by the learned Addl. P.P. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband drugs was recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused. This appeal is therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is set aside and quashed. The appellant is required to be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. Return the TCR to the concerned Court.