UDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the accused appellants. Also heard Ms. Linda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State respondents. 2 . This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.R. No. 285/2018 arising out of Excise & Narcotics Case No. N-172/2018, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and the impugned sentence dated 20.07.2022 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and failure to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1 (one) year. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the night of 15.08.2018 at around 11:30 pm, PW-5, S.I. Lalnghahmawii received information from her source that some persons would bring Heroin from Kolasib, Mizoram. Pursuant to such report, a team/party went to Bawngkawn, Aizawl to intercept the suspected persons. After waiting for some time, the suspected persons reached Bawngkawn in a Taxi. They conducted a search in the presence of the witnesses and recovered 21 (twenty one) Nos. of soap cases containing Heroin kept in a black rucksack. The seized articles were seized at 2:30 AM on 16.08.2018 and the weight of the said seized articles was taken, which is 252 grams of Heroin. Accordingly, a case was registered against the accused appellants. 4. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested on 16.08.2018 and accordingly, a complaint-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl, against the accused appellants vide forwarding letter dated 02.10.2018. 5. Upon appearance, the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl framed charges under Section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act against the accused appellants. 6. During trial, prosecution examined five prosecution witnesses, namely, (i) Shri. B Lalzirmawia (PW-1, Seizure Witness), (ii) Shri James Lalhmachhuana (PW-2, Seizure Witness), (iii) Smt. Lalnghahmawii (PW-3, Seizing Officer), (iv) Smt. Lalhriatpuii (PW-4, JMFC) and (v) S.I. C Lalbiaktluanga (PW-5, the Investigating Officer of the case). 7. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the accused appellants denied the allegations made against them. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 8. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred. 9. 7. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused appellants under Section 313 CrPC, wherein the accused appellants denied the allegations made against them. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 8. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred. 9. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the accused appellants, submits that the front seat passenger of the tourist taxi from which the seized articles have been allegedly recovered, being a material witness, was neither prosecuted nor examined. He further submits that the drawing of sample of the contraband seized articles for chemical analysis was not done as per the provisions stipulated in the Standing Order dated 22.11.1989 framed under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He further submits that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused appellants with the alleged contraband. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden under the stringent provisions of the ND&PS Act. 10. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the accused appellants relied on the following case laws – (i) Noor Aga -Vs- State of Punjab , reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417 (ii) Mangilal -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 862 (iii) Union of India -Vs- Bal Mukund , reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161, (iv) State of Punjab -Vs- Baldev Singh , reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 (v) State of Rajasthan -Vs- Gurmail Singh , reported in (2005) 3 SCC 59 , and (vi) State of Mizoram -Vs- Ramengmawia , reported in (2006) 1 GLR 745 11. Per contra, Ms. Linda, learned APP, Mizoram, submits that the case of the prosecution is on the basis of the specific information received, upon which a raid was conducted in the subject tourist taxi from which the seized articles were recovered from the possession of the accused appellants seated in the backseat of the said vehicle in front of two independent witnesses. The prosecution having proved the fundamental facts for drawing presumption under Section 35 of the ND&PS Act, the defence having failed to rebut the same, the impugned judgment and conviction of the learned Trial Court warrant no interference from this Court. 12. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 13. It appears that on receipt of prior and specific information, a raiding team intercepted the tourist taxi at the relevant place and time. The accused appellants were seated in the rear seat of the said vehicle. Upon search of the vehicle, the police party in the presence of two independent witnesses, PWs-1 & 2, recovered the contraband substances from the bags produced by the accused appellants. 14. PW-5, the Investigating Officer, deposed that after receipt of information as regards the transportation of contraband articles in a hired taxi from Kolasib, Mizoram, upon forming a team along with two reliable persons from the locality in question, intercepted the said vehicle, which arrived at Bawngkawn and upon a search being conducted in presence of PWs- 1 & 2, recovered 21 soap cases containing Heroin in a black colour rucksack. He further deposed that the weighing of the cited Heroin was taken at Bawngkawn, which weighed 252 grams and he further deposed that he seized the same and also arrested the accused appellant on 16.08.2018. He further deposed that the report of the seizure and arrest was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge, ANS and accordingly, a case was registered and the same was endorsed to him for further investigation. He further deposed that during his investigation, he examined the accused appellants and the accused appellant No. 1 stated that in the month of August, he contacted one drug peddler who wanted to buy some large quantity of Heroin from Manipur known as Kimi of Jeribam and ordered Heroin from her. He further deposed that the accused appellant No. 1 further stated to him that on 15.08.2018 he contacted said Kimi and she told him to meet her at Silchar and he accordingly went there and met her who was there with the co-accused appellant No. 2 from Manipur. The accused appellant No. 1 further stated to PW-5 that he and the co-accused appellant No. 2 thereafter proceeded from Silchar towards Aizawl and also stated that they were arrested with the seized articles at Bawngkawn before they reached their destination. The accused appellant No. 1 further stated to PW-5 that he and the co-accused appellant No. 2 thereafter proceeded from Silchar towards Aizawl and also stated that they were arrested with the seized articles at Bawngkawn before they reached their destination. PW-5 further deposed that the accused appellant No. 2 similarly stated that while visiting Jeribam Manipur on the morning of 15.08.2018, Kimi of Jeribam asked for transporting some Heroin to earn some money and accordingly, he accepted and then he, along with her went to Silchar with the seized Heroin and met the accused appellant No. 1. He further stated that then he along with the accused appellant No. 1 proceeded from Silchar to Aizawl and were arrested before reaching their destination. 15. PW-5 further deposed that he examined the seized witnesses and the seizing officer. He further deposed that regarding said Kimi of Jeribam, he could not confirm if she exists or not, as he could not find her contact number and since the place is outside his jurisdiction, he could not go there to find out about her. He further deposed that he, during investigation, had done inventory of the seized articles, drew samples and took photographs of the seized articles before the PW-4 and also sent samples of the seized articles to the FSL for chemical analysis and the result of the FSL found the seized articles to be Heroin, the purity of which was about 72% w/w at the time of examination. He accordingly, upon completion of his investigation, found a prima facie case under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act against the accused appellants and accordingly charged them and submitted the charge-sheet. He further exhibited the seizure and arrest memo, application for correctness of inventory photographs and drawing of samples, inventory of the seized articles, photographs of the seized articles, information report, reasons for search, report of seizure, arrest and report of the FSL and the complaint sheet as Exhibits P-1 to P-10 respectively. 16. During cross-examination, he clarified that he recorded the statement of the two accused persons, seizure witnesses and the seizing officer. He further clarified that he sent the samples to the FSL for expert examination. He further clarified that he received the FSL report through the O/C, ANS and the results show that the seized articles were found to be Heroin with a purity of 72% w/w each. He further clarified that he sent the samples to the FSL for expert examination. He further clarified that he received the FSL report through the O/C, ANS and the results show that the seized articles were found to be Heroin with a purity of 72% w/w each. He further clarified that the total quantity of the seized articles was 252 grams of Heroin. He further clarified that as per the statements recorded by him, the accused appellant No. 2 stated that the seized articles were brought by him from Manipur and that the co-accused appellant No. 1 assisted him from Silchar to Aizawl. He further clarified that as per the statements of the seizure witnesses recorded by him, the two seizure witnesses stated that they were present at the time of recovery, conducting weighment, packing and sealing of the seized articles. 17. PWs-1 & 2 are the seizure witnesses who supported the testimony of PW-5 and deposed before the Court that on the night of 15.08.2018 while they were at Bawngkawn Zawlbuk, four female Excise personnel came and informed them that they were awaiting one vehicle and requested them to help them since they are female and in case if they could not stop the said vehicle and also requested them to witness the search and seizure. They further deposed that they agreed to witness the search and seizure and accordingly followed the Excise personnel to the junction of Bawngkawn, where they awaited the suspected vehicle. They further deposed that when the suspected vehicle was stopped, the same was halted and the two accused appellants were found seating in the rear seat of the said tourist taxi and in their presence, the police officers conducted the search in the bags carried by them and recovered 21 soap cases containing Heroin. They further deposed that a weighment was taken and it was 252 grams. They further deposed that packing and sealing were done. They further deposed that police seized the said Heroin and also arrested the possessors and they stood as the witnesses in the seizure memo. 18. During cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that he does not know the owner of the bags from which the seized articles were recovered. He further clarified that he was not present at the time of taking out the bags from the taxi by the Excise officers. 18. During cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that he does not know the owner of the bags from which the seized articles were recovered. He further clarified that he was not present at the time of taking out the bags from the taxi by the Excise officers. He further clarified that he was not present with the Excise personnel at the time of taking out the seized articles from the bags, as he was playing Carom board beside them. He further clarified that the weigment of the seized articles was done at Bawngkawn Zawlbuk. 19. During cross-examination, PW-2 clarified that there was one passenger other than the two accused appellants boarded in the taxi, from where the seized articles were seized. He further clarified that he does not know who was the owner of the bags, from which the seized articles were recovered. 20. He further clarified that after the Excise personnel took out the bags from the taxi, they followed the Excise personnel towards Bawngkawn Zawlbuk. He further clarified that the actual recovery of the seized articles was done at Bawngkawn Zawlbuk. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of taking out the bags from the taxi by the excise personnel. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of conducing the search and seizure. He further clarified that weigment of the seized articles was done at Bawngkawn Zawlbuk. He further clarified that he witnessed the recovery of the seized articles from the bags. 21. PW-3, SI Lalnghahmawii is the seizing officer who deposed that on the night of 15.08.2018, she received information from her source that some persons brought Heroin from Kolasib, reduced the information into writing and submitted it to the O.C., ANS and thereafter, she and her party left to intercept the suspected persons. She further deposed that at the place of occurrence, she arranged civilian witnesses, i.e., PWs-1 & 2 and at around 2:30 AM, upon spotting the suspected vehicle coming from Durtlang Road, halted the said vehicle and recovered illicit drugs from one bag (rucksack), which was carried by the accused appellants while seated in the rear seat of the said vehicle. She further deposed that when she asked the accused appellants who the owner of the bag was, they claimed that the bag was theirs. She further deposed that when she asked the accused appellants who the owner of the bag was, they claimed that the bag was theirs. She further deposed that in presence of PWs- 1 & 2, they conducted a search inside the said vehicle and recovered 21 soap cases containing Heroin, which weighed altogether 252 grams. She further deposed that packing and sealing was done and then she submitted the seizure report to the O.C., ANS and accordingly, exhibited the seizure and arrest memo, information report, reasons for search and report of seizure and arrest as Exhibits-P1, P-6, P-7 and P-8 respectively. 22. During cross-examination, she clarified that there were three passengers inside the taxi from which the seized articles were recovered. She further clarified that the seized articles were recovered from the back seat of the taxi where the two accused appellants were seated. She further clarified that the seized articles were taken out from the bag recovered from the taxi at the spot where the taxi was halted. She further clarified that weighing, packing and sealing of the seized articles was conducted at Bawngkawn YMA Zawlbuk. She denied the suggestion that the seized articles were already recovered from the bag when the two seizure witnesses arrived. She further denied the suggestion that no case was registered against the passenger who was seating in the front seat of the said vehicle. She further clarified that the taxi where the seized articles were recovered proceeded from Durtlang and halted near Bawngkawn traffic point. 23. PW-4, MJS, JMFC, District Court, Aizawl deposed that on 16.08.2018 she conducted the inventory of the seized articles and prepared the report. She further deposed that she found the following – (i) Name of drugs: Heroin (ii) Quantity: 252 Grams. (iii) Mode of packing: Kept in 21 Nos. of soap cases. (iv) Country of origin: Myanmar. 24. She further deposed that samples of the seized articles were drawn from each of the soap cases in her presence. She further deposed that two photographs of the seized articles were taken before her and she put his signature. She further deposed that Exhibit P-2 is the application for correctness of inventory photographs and drawing of samples, Exhibit P-2(a) is her signature. She further exhibited the inventory of the seized articles as Exhibit P-3. She further exhibited the list of samples drawn and identified her signature as Exhibit. She further deposed that Exhibit P-2 is the application for correctness of inventory photographs and drawing of samples, Exhibit P-2(a) is her signature. She further exhibited the inventory of the seized articles as Exhibit P-3. She further exhibited the list of samples drawn and identified her signature as Exhibit. P-4(a), P-4A(a), P-4B(a), P- 4C(a), P-4D(a) and P-4E(a) respectively. She further exhibited the photographs of the seized articles as Exhibit P-5. 25. During cross-examination, she clarified that the two seizure witnesses were not brought before her at the time of conducting the inventory of the goods seized. She clarified that the weighing of the seized articles was not conducted before her. She further clarified that the inventory of the seized articles was prepared on the same day when she was endorsed to do so. She denied the suggestion that the seized articles were not properly sealed when it was produced before her. She further denied that the seized articles were not produced by the S.I. of Excise. 26. During the 313 CrPC statement, the accused appellants, while denying the incriminating circumstances, generally explained that they also claimed before the Excise personnel that the bags did not belong to them and therefore they were not aware of the contents of the said bags. 27. The following questions arise for consideration in the instant appeal – (i) Whether the trial is vitiated for non-compliance of the Standing Order dated 22.11.1989. (ii) Whether the non-examination of the front-seat passenger undermines the prosecution case. (iii) Whether the prosecution has successfully proved conscious possession of the contraband by the accused appellants. (iv) Whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the ND&PS Act apply and, if so, whether the accused appellants have rebutted the same. 28. As regards the first issue that the Investigating Officer has not drawn up the requisite quantity in its sample for chemical test in terms of the Standing Order dated 22.11.1989, apt to refer to Clause-2.3 of the said Standing Order, which reads as under – “The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/container shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn.” 29. It is urged that as per Clause-2.3 of the said Standing Order, the quantity to be drawn for each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test, however, in the present case, as per the description of the exhibits contained in Exhibit P-9, the samples weigh about 57 mg, 72 mg, 46 mg, 90 mg, 40 mg or so. 30. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the Standing Orders framed under the provision of the law prescribing guidelines to be followed in cases involving panel proceedings ought to be rigorously followed. In a given case when non-compliance of guidelines framed under the statute is alleged during the trial, unless the prosecution proves compliance of such guidelines, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. However, it is established from the records that the accused appellants has not demolished the prosecution testimony of the FSL testing positive for FSL. In fact, upon PW-5 having deposed that he had sent samples of the seized contraband articles to FSL for chemical analysis and the result of the FSL was that the said seized contraband articles were found to be Heroin, the purity of each was about 72% ww at the time of examination, the accused appellants did not even cross-examine the said prosecution witness in this regard. Hence, there was no occasion for the prosecution to prove compliance of the same. The 1st issue is accordingly decided against the accused appellants. 31. Now turning to the 2nd issue as regards non-examining of the other passenger in the vehicle, it appears that PW-5’s testimony of recovering the contraband articles from the possession of the accused appellants is found corroborated by two independent witnesses, i.e., PWs- 1 & 2. Their testimony appears to be trustworthy and reliable. It is settled law that the prosecution is not bound to examine every witness if the evidence on record is otherwise cogent and credible. Their testimony appears to be trustworthy and reliable. It is settled law that the prosecution is not bound to examine every witness if the evidence on record is otherwise cogent and credible. The testimonies of the PW-5, Investigating Officer and the PW-3, raiding officer, are consistent, unshaken and inspires confidence. No contradiction has been established to render their evidence doubtful. Hence, the omission to nd examine the front seat passenger does not affect the prosecution case. The 2 issue is also accordingly decided against the accused appellants. 32. As regards the 3rd issue of conscious possession of the accused appellant of the contraband seized articles, it appears that the contraband has been recovered from the accused appellants who were seated in the back of the said vehicle. The concept of possession under the ND&PS Act encompasses custody and knowledge. The testimony of PW-5 that one of the accused appellant admitted procuring the contraband from Manipur with the co-accused appellant further corroborates the recovery. Statements furnished as contemporaneous conduct may be taken into account as corroborative evidence. Hence, it is evident that the prosecution has rd clearly proved conscious possession. Accordingly, the 3 issue is also decided against the accused appellants. 33. Now coming to the last issue as regards presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the ND&PS Act, once possession is established, the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 arise. Then the burden shifts to the accused to rebut these presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, except for a bare denial under Section 313 CrPC, the accused appellants have offered no explanation whatsoever. I am of the firm view that mere denial is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions. Accordingly, the prosecution has discharged its burden and the presumption remains un-rebutted. Accordingly, the last issue is also decided against the accused appellants. 34. In view of the forgoing, it is established that the chain of custody has been proved through consistent testimonies regarding seizure, sealing, sampling and forwarding. No material defect or tampering has been demonstrated. Minor procedural discrepancies not going to the root, do not vitiate the prosecution case. 35. Accordingly, the last issue is also decided against the accused appellants. 34. In view of the forgoing, it is established that the chain of custody has been proved through consistent testimonies regarding seizure, sealing, sampling and forwarding. No material defect or tampering has been demonstrated. Minor procedural discrepancies not going to the root, do not vitiate the prosecution case. 35. As regards the decision of the Apex Court in Noor Aga -Vs- State of Punjab (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the Apex Court has emphasized that guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied with, but also in cases involving panel proceedings, such guidelines ought to be insisted upon and accordingly has held that Standing Order ought not to be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance must be insisted upon. In the present case, no defence, whatsoever, of violation of the Standing Orders was taken during the trial. Instead, on the contrary, it appears that the search, seizure has been properly done. Hence, the said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 36. As regards State of Rajasthan -Vs- Gurmail Singh (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that in the context where no sample or seal along with the sample was sent to Excise laboratory for comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles, the Apex Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the seal found were the same as were put on sample bottles immediately after seizure of contraband articles. However, the same is not the case in the context of the present case. 37. In the case of Union of India -Vs- Bal Mukund (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the acquittal was not merely on the ground that adequate quantity from each bag had not been taken, but was one of the factor taken note of, while acquitting the accused appellant in that matter. The decisions of the Apex Court are contextual and hence, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are of no relevance in the facts of the present case. 38. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl, Mizoram. The decisions of the Apex Court are contextual and hence, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are of no relevance in the facts of the present case. 38. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl, Mizoram. The prosecution has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband recovered from the vehicle in question. 39. In view of the forgoing discussion, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed. 40. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 19.07.2022 and the impugned order of sentence dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl, Mizoram in S.R. No. 285/2018 arising out of Excise & Narcotics Case No. N-172/2018, hereby stands affirmed. 41 . TCR be returned forthwith.