JUDGMENT & ORDER : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State Respondents. Brief facts:- 2. On 11.08.2020, Mr. Lalpianpuia, Assistant Sub Inspector of Mamit Police Station lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Officer-in- Charge, Kolasib Police Station regarding the seizure of contraband drugs and apprehension of a suspect dealing in the said drugs. The informant had stated that on 10.08.2020, he had received information that one maxi cab sumo having a service route between Aizawl-Kolasib was carrying contraband substances and was proceeding towards Mamit. Having put the information in writing, he informed the matter to his superior Officer i.e. the Officer-In-Charge of Mamit Police Station, who in turn issued an authorization letter as per Section-41(2) of ND&PS Act for further necessary action as per law. 3. The FIR further stated that acting upon the information and the authorization, the informant and his team proceeded towards Mamit junction where the said maxi cab was supposed to arrive. At around 08:30 PM, the suspected maxi cab sumo arrived at the junction and was stopped. The maxi cab sumo was taken to Mamit Police Station and in presence of senior police officers, like Additional Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Police Officer and the Officer-In-Charge, the maxi cab sumo was inspected. However, as the owner of the suspected contraband substances was not found in the sumo, the vehicle was released. Thereafter, the maxi cab sumo was secretly followed by the police team when it proceeded to Kolasib. The sumo reached Kolasib the following day around 03:30 AM. The Police team stealthily pursued the sumo from behind until it reached HB counter office, Venglai, Kolasib where the driver dropped/delivered the suspected carton box/parcel strongly suspected to contain contraband substances. At around 09:30 AM in the morning, the police team came back to the counter and while they were in the counter office, the accused came to the HB counter and took delivery of the parcel/carton box suspected to contain contraband substances. She was intercepted and detained in the counter office by the police team. The Police team informed the matter to Kolasib Police Station. The Officer-In-charge of the Kolasib police station and his team comprising a woman constable arrived soon at the HB counter office. She was intercepted and detained in the counter office by the police team. The Police team informed the matter to Kolasib Police Station. The Officer-In-charge of the Kolasib police station and his team comprising a woman constable arrived soon at the HB counter office. As per the instruction of the officer-in-charge, Kolasib Police Station, the informant opened the suspected parcel/carton box in presence of two civilian witnesses and the accused. The police found Sunday tea mix, tea plus and 8(eight) soap cases from inside the parcel/carton box. All the soap cases contained substances suspected to be heroin. The substances were seized and weighed on the spot in presence of witnesses. It was 107 grams in weight. The accused Lalthanthuami (47), w/o Lalhmangaiha, resident of Khuangpuilam was arrested and produced in Kolasib police station. 4. On the basis of the FIR aforesaid, Kolasib Police registered Kolasib P.S Case No. 59/2020 dated 11.08.2020 under Section 21 (b) of ND&PS Act, 1985 against the appellant herein. 5. The Investigating officer to whom the case was marked by the Officer-in-Charge of Kolasib Police Station produced the seized substances in the Court along with the accused for the purpose of drawing samples, judicial remand of the accused and for further necessary actions. He drew representative samples in the presence of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib. He sent the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl for chemical analysis. He received the FSL report and the sample packets were found to be heroin with a purity 82% w/w and 78%w/w at the time of examination. 6. Having collected strong evidences of violation of Clause-(c) of Section 8 of ND&PS Act, the Investigating Officer submitted charge- sheet under Section 21(b) ND&PS Act, 1985, against the accused Mrs. Lalthanthuami, aged 47, wife of Lalhmangaiha, resident of Khuangpuilam, Kolasib. The Trial: 7. The Informant led his evidence as PW-1. He stated that the accused came to the HB counter and claimed the Wai Wai Carton box. He stated that the Wai Wai carton box was opened in presence of civilian witnesses and 8 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin along with Tea Plus and Sunday Tea Packets were found in the Wai Wai carton box. He stated that the accused came to the HB counter and claimed the Wai Wai Carton box. He stated that the Wai Wai carton box was opened in presence of civilian witnesses and 8 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin along with Tea Plus and Sunday Tea Packets were found in the Wai Wai carton box. During cross examination, he admitted that no photographs of the seizure were taken, he did not remember the registration number of the vehicle which transported the seized articles and he did not know the name of the driver of the vehicle. He admitted that no action was taken against the transporter or the possessor. 8. PW-2 was the civilian witness who stated that when he reached the courier counter, the Mamit police and the accused were already there. The Police explained to him about the incident. They waited for the arrival of the staff of Kolasib Police Station and upon their arrival the carton box was opened. He stated about the contents of the carton box and also stated that the process of weighing the contents, the packaging and the sealing, the seizure and the arrest was done in his presence. In cross-examination, he confirmed that the seized article/package was found from HB courier. 9. PW-5, who was from the Forensic Laboratory, Aizawl gave evidence that they had received a parcel containing the exhibits along with requisition for examination of the contents of the exhibits from the officer in charge of the Kolasib Police Station, that they conducted examination of the exhibits and found the exhibits to be heroin of different purity levels. He identified his signatures on the FSL report. During cross examination, he admitted that as per the forwarding report, there was no particular mentioning of the weight of the exhibits. 10. In her examination under the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused had denied the seizure of the contraband from her possession and she stated that the parcel which she had claimed was supposed to be a parcel of shoes. 11. The sole defence witness deposed that she knew that an unknown person from Aizwal had called her friend to inform that they had dispatched women's shoes to be delivered to her. 11. The sole defence witness deposed that she knew that an unknown person from Aizwal had called her friend to inform that they had dispatched women's shoes to be delivered to her. On cross examination, the witness stated that she did not see the contents of the parcel and that the unknown person did not tell her that the parcel contained shoes. 12. The following points were framed by the Learned Trial Court for determination; (i) Whether the Police Officer seized the contraband substances/heroin from the possession of the accused person? (ii) Whether the seized substances were contraband substances (heroin)? (iii) Whether the mandatory provisions of laws are duly complied with in the present case? iv) Whether the accused person is liable to be convicted and sentenced under the charged section of law? 13. The Trial Court considered the evidence of the PW-1, who was the informant in the case that the informant had reached the HB counter in the morning of 11.08.2020 and found one Wai Wai carton box. As per PW-1, the accused came there after some time and claimed that the carton box belonged to her. PW-1 intercepted her and opened the carton in front of two civilian witnesses. The learned Trial Court thus, came to a finding on the basis of PW-1 that the contraband substances were seized from the possession of the accused at the time when she came to the HB counter. From the evidence of PW-2, the Trial Court noticed that he was physically present on the spot by the time the police officer seized the contraband substances. He is a civilian witness. His ocular evidence clearly revealed that the contraband substances was recovered/found from inside the wai wai carton box being claimed by the accused. The Trial Court noticed that the prosecution evidence clearly revealed about the seizure of the contraband substances from the possession of the accused and hence, found it safe to conclude that the police officer seized the heroin from the possession of the present accused. 14. The Trial Court found that the cross-examination of the PW-8, who was the investigating officer and PW-5, who was the junior Scientific Officer, Forensic Laboratory, Aizawl, PWs did not shake the veracity of the evidence adduced by the aforesaid PWs. 14. The Trial Court found that the cross-examination of the PW-8, who was the investigating officer and PW-5, who was the junior Scientific Officer, Forensic Laboratory, Aizawl, PWs did not shake the veracity of the evidence adduced by the aforesaid PWs. The learned Trial Court held that as the examination of the samples were done as per procedure and as there were no lapse on their part; the result of examination was found not questionable. 15. After discussing the objections raised by the learned counsel for the accused regarding violation of mandatory procedural safeguards during the seizure and also during the investigation, the learned Trial Court found it safe to conclude that no procedural lapse was committed on the part of the prosecution. 16. Referring to the answers given by the accused during her examination under provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and also by holding that the deposition made by the sole defence witness was merely a statement with no connection to the present case and did not have any evidentiary value, the learned Trial Court observed that there was no dispute over the fact that the possession of heroin by the accused was conscious possession. The learned Trial Court held that since the first three issues were concluded in favour of the prosecution, there was no hindrance for deciding the last point to bring the case under Section 21(b) of ND& PS Act. Since the case was proved by the prosecution beyond doubt, the learned Trial Court had convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs 30,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. Submissions on behalf of the appellant: 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the provisions of Section 41, 42 and 43 of the ND&PS Act have been violated in the present case and as such, the impugned conviction of the appellant deserves the interference of this Court. Submissions on behalf of the appellant: 17. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the provisions of Section 41, 42 and 43 of the ND&PS Act have been violated in the present case and as such, the impugned conviction of the appellant deserves the interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the powers conferred by Section-41(2) are read along with the provisions of the notification dated 2nd of July, 2018, it will be clear that all officers of and above the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Excise and Narcotics Department and Police Department under the Government of Mizoram are to exercise the powers specified in Sub- Section (1) of that section within the areas of their respective jurisdiction. He submits that if the same is read in consonance with the jurisdiction of the Officer-In-Charge of the Mamit Police Station, which extend to Mamit, Dampui, North Sabual, Bawngva, Tlangkhang, Phaizau, Chilui, Dilzawl, Vawngawnzo, Suarhliap, Nalzawl, Damdiai, Khanthum and Darlak, the jurisdiction does not extend to Kolasib. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the seizing and arresting officer had no authority to conduct the seizure and the arrest of the accused/appellant in Kolasib, which lay beyond the territory over which he could have exercised jurisdiction. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has, thereafter, referred to the alleged violation of provisions of Section-52(A) to suggest that since the disposal of the seized contraband was not carried out in the manner specified, the arrest and the seizure carried out would loose legality and, therefore, the learned trial Court had committed an error in convicting the appellant. The learned counsel has referred to the Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 to argue that when a specific quantity is required to be drawn in each sample for chemical test, any deviation would be fatal not only to the investigation but also to the identification of a substance to be a contraband drug. It is his submission that even in that view of the matter, the impugned conviction deserves an interference. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the sample nor the seized article had been produced before the Court during the trial and, therefore, no authenticity can be inferred with regard to either the seized articles or the sample sent for forensic investigation. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the sample nor the seized article had been produced before the Court during the trial and, therefore, no authenticity can be inferred with regard to either the seized articles or the sample sent for forensic investigation. He has, therefore, submitted that even in that view of the matter, the conviction deserves an interference. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant has, thereafter, pointed to deficiencies in the investigation process, asserting that the deficiencies had the potential to vitiate the entire investigation and he submitted that such investigation ought not to have been relied upon for a conviction. The learned counsel has submitted that the vehicle in which the contraband had been allegedly transported to Kolasib was not identified, save and except referring to the make and type of the vehicle. The registration number of the vehicle was not ascertained during the enquiry. Consequently, even the driver of the said vehicle was neither identified nor brought in as a witness. He has further submitted that even the owner/operator of the HB Counter, from where the alleged contraband had been seized, was neither identified nor brought in as a witness. No explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution for leaving out such vital witnesses. The learned counsel has submitted that the absence of any effort to procure the evidence of such vital witnesses would raise serious doubts on the prosecution story and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that even in this view, the impugned conviction deserves an interference of the Court. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence led by the Seizing Officer and the Investigating Officer which contradictions would fatally wound the prosecution story. He has also submitted that the independent witness during the seizure and the arrest did not state that the Wai Wai Carton Box was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant and, therefore, there was no evidence to presume conscious possession of either the box or the contents thereof by the accused/appellant. 22. He has also submitted that the independent witness during the seizure and the arrest did not state that the Wai Wai Carton Box was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant and, therefore, there was no evidence to presume conscious possession of either the box or the contents thereof by the accused/appellant. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that in view of all the above, the impugned conviction of the appellant was a result of grave error committed by the learned Trial Court and that the same deserves to be set aside and quashed by this Court. Submissions by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 23. Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P, Ms Mary L. Khiangte has submitted that the provisions of Section-42 and 43 of the NDPS Act, 1985, does not provide that an officer authorized under the provisions of law to search, seize and arrest would be bound by territorial jurisdiction. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that the Officer conducting the search, seizure and arrest held the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, and, therefore, as has been recorded by the learned trial Court, the authorization by the Officer- In-Charge was a mere formality since the Seizing and Arresting Officer was already authorized to act as such by the provisions of law itself. 24. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that the search and seizure was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses and at the time of search, seizure and arrest, the officials of the Kolasib Police Station, which also included a lady Police officer were present. The learned Addl.P.P has submitted that there is no restriction in law for an officer authorised under the ND&PS Act to search, seize or arrest outside the territorial jurisdiction of the particular office to which he/she is attached, more so in cases like the present one, where the concept of hot pursuit would also come in. She has submitted that, in any event, it is not in dispute that during the search, seizure and arrest, the concerned authorities, including the Officer-In- Charge of the Kolasib Police Station were present and upon lodging of FIR by the Seizing Officer, the investigation was conducted by the Kolasib Police Station. She has submitted that, in any event, it is not in dispute that during the search, seizure and arrest, the concerned authorities, including the Officer-In- Charge of the Kolasib Police Station were present and upon lodging of FIR by the Seizing Officer, the investigation was conducted by the Kolasib Police Station. The learned Addl.P.P has submitted that even in the face of projected irregularities, which do not have the force to vitiate the proceedings, the failure of the appellant to discharge the ‘reverse burden of proof’ is indicative enough of her guilt and therefore, she prays for rejection of this appeal. 25. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that the accused and independent witnesses were present at the time of seizure of the contraband from the accused and no flaw in the investigation has been brought out. By referring to Narcotics Control Bureau Versus- Kashif reported in 2024 (11) SCC 372 , the learned Addl.P.P has submitted that even if any procedural irregularity or illegality is found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, the same would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. She has further submitted that any lapse or delay in compliance of Section-52A by itself would not vitiate the trial. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act. She has thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Discussions and conclusions: 26. At the outset, let this Court deal with the submission on behalf of the appellant that the seizing and arresting officer had no authority to conduct the seizure and the arrest of the accused/appellant in Kolasib, which lay beyond the territory over which he could have exercised jurisdiction. The said submission has to be considered only to be rejected. At the outset, let this Court deal with the submission on behalf of the appellant that the seizing and arresting officer had no authority to conduct the seizure and the arrest of the accused/appellant in Kolasib, which lay beyond the territory over which he could have exercised jurisdiction. The said submission has to be considered only to be rejected. The Officer who had taken up the responsibility to trace and follow the vehicle which was allegedly carrying the contraband substances was authorised in law to follow the said vehicle and he was also authorised in law to intercept any person who was in receipt/possession of the contraband substances, whether such person was at that time within the territorial jurisdiction of the office to which the officer concerned was posted. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that when the powers conferred by Section-41(2) of the ND&PS Act are read along with the provisions of the notification dated 2nd of July, 2018, it will be clear that all officers of and above the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise and Narcotics Department and Police Department under the Government of Mizoram to exercise the powers specified in Sub-Section-(1) of that section within the areas of their respective jurisdiction is correct only to the extent that officers of certain police station can authorise other officials under their jurisdiction under provisions of Section-41 of the ND&PS Act. The said provisions cannot be read to indicate that officers empowered under the ND&PS Act can exercise authority for pursuit, seizure and arrest only within the territorial jurisdiction of the office to which they are posted at the relevant time. In any case, the Officer who conducted the search, seizure and arrest held the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, and therefore, this Court is in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court that the authorization by the Officer-In-Charge was a mere formality and the Seizing and Arresting Officer was already authorized to act as such by the provisions of law itself. 27. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding violation of provisions of Section 52A of the ND&PS Act and Standing Order No. 8/1989, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant judgments which dealt with the effect of non-compliance or belated compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law. 28. 27. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding violation of provisions of Section 52A of the ND&PS Act and Standing Order No. 8/1989, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant judgments which dealt with the effect of non-compliance or belated compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law. 28. In Bharat Aambale -Versus- The State Of Chhattisgarh , reported as 2025 (8) SCC 452 , the Apex court has held as follows: “50. We summarize our final conclusion as under: - (I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act. (II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure. (III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub- section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not. (IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. (IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. (V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses. (VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. (VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. (IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities. (IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities. (X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29. In Kailas -Versus- The State of Maharashtra , decided on 15.09.2025 neutral citation being 2025 INSC 1117 , the Apex Court has, with reference to the provisions of Section-52A of the ND&PS Act held that this section, inter alia, enables preparation of inventory of seized contraband, drawing of samples therefrom, taking of photographs, etc., as well as its disposal. Sub-section (4) of Section 52-A is important. It provides that every court shall treat the inventory, the photographs of the contraband and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence. With regard to the production or otherwise of the samples etc., the Apex Court in the same judgment held; “31. In the light of the discussion above, in our view, mere non- production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material. However, to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record. Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelope, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL. This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit. Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelope, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL. This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit. Similarly, FSL’s report along with the sample tested by it is to be placed on record so that there remains no doubt regarding the sample tested.” 30. The PW-1 in his evidence had stated that on 10.08.2020, he received information that heroin was being transported by one Kolasib-Aizwal Sumo Plying from Aizwal to Mamit via Kolasib. He further stated that he had gone to Kolasib looking for the Sumo and on 11.08.2020 at 09:30 AM and he found that the suspected heroin packed in Wai Wai carton box was unloaded at HB Courier and left to be collected by the owner. When the accused came to collect the wai wai carton box, they opened the box in presence of civilian witnesses and from inside recovered 8 soap cases containing brown powder suspected to be heroin. During cross examination, he admitted that the time of seizure was 11:40 AM at the HB Courier. He admitted that not a single photo of the seized Article or place of occurrence was taken. He admitted that he did not know the registration number of the vehicle which allegedly carried the contraband and he did not know the name of the driver. He admitted that he did not try to find the sender of the parcel. 31. The PW-2 stated that he was a witness to the seizure and had reached the Courier at about 09:30 AM. He stated that after a few minutes, the police from Kolasib reached the spot and they opened the carton box. He stated that the police explained to him about the incident. In cross examination he stated that the package was found from the HB Courier. He did not state that the package was recovered from the accused or that he was present when the accused came looking for the package. 32. The expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory stated about the receipt of the parcel containing 8 exhibits marked as Exhibit-A to Exhibit-H and that on examination the said exhibits were found to be heroin of different purity levels. 32. The expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory stated about the receipt of the parcel containing 8 exhibits marked as Exhibit-A to Exhibit-H and that on examination the said exhibits were found to be heroin of different purity levels. In his cross examination, he has stated that the forwarding of the suspected heroin was forwarded by the Officer-In-Charge, Kolasib Police station. He also stated that there was no mention of the weight of the samples forwarded. 33. The PW-8 was the Investigating Officer. As per his statement, during his investigation, he had recorded the statement of PW-1. He stated that PW-1 had given statement that on receipt of information regarding the transport of the heroin by the Tata Sumo Maxi cab, the PW-1 had intercepted the same and had brought it to the Mamit Police Station in the th th night intervening 10 and 11 of August 2020 but had let it proceed to Kolasib without recovering the heroin from the vehicle although they could identify the suspected parcel. The PW-1, along with another officer, had followed the vehicle, which unloaded the package at HB Courier at about 03:30 AM on 11.08.2020. The PW-1 had further stated before the investigating officer that he had gone to HB Courier at about 09:30 AM in the morning of 11.08.2020 and apprehended the accused with the package. The investigating officer further stated that the accused had stated before him that she had talked over phone with the driver of the Sumo Vehicle which carried the consignment and had gone to collect the parcel when he confirmed that he had left the parcel at HB Courier. 34. The statement of the investigating officer reveals that the driver of the Maxi cab sumo had been initially taken to the Mamit Police station and the suspected parcel had been detected and therefore, the driver of the Sumo was aware of the process being followed. He had delivered the package to the courier office at 03:30 AM in the morning. However, he was not included as a prosecution witness and ironically, the PW-1 did not mention th th the incidents of the night intervening 10 and 11 of August in his statement. He had delivered the package to the courier office at 03:30 AM in the morning. However, he was not included as a prosecution witness and ironically, the PW-1 did not mention th th the incidents of the night intervening 10 and 11 of August in his statement. Neither the driver of the Maxi Cab nor the owner/operator of the courier service were presented as witnesses by the prosecution, although the parcel had allegedly been received from the said Maxi Cab Driver and although the parcel was allegedly recovered from the premises. The parcel was left overnight at the Courier without there being any guard over the same. There was no corroboration of the allegation that the accused had asked for the said parcel and that it was handed over to her and then she was intercepted. The independent witness stated that the accused, the parcel and the PW-1 were already present when he reached there and he was explained the circumstances by the police. The samples and seized articles were not produced before the Trial Court. The inventory prepared and signed by the learned Magistrate on the prayer of the Investigating Officer did not contain the weight of each of the samples drawn although eight samples were shown to be drawn. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband drugs was recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused. 35. 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.