M. THANGI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, the learned counsel for the appellant who submits that the appellant convict is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Special Court, ND & PS Act, Aizawl in Crl. Trial (Ex.) No. 758/2017, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 21 (b) of the ND & PS Act, 1985 and Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for three months, vide the Sentence Order dated 28.03.2018.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that on 14.03.2017 at around 2.45 pm, at Chhingaveng Saron Road, Aizawl, near the City Bus stand, Sub-Inspector Benjamin Lalruattluanga of the Excise and Narcotics Department seized 63 grams of heroin kept in four plastic soap cases, wrapped in black polythene from the appellant. After charge sheet had been filed and charge under Section 21 (b) of the ND & PS Act, 1985 had been framed against the appellant, the learned Trial Court examined four witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2018 passed in Criminal Trial (Ex) No. 758/2017, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for three months, vide Sentence Order dated 28.03.2018.

(3.) The appellant's counsel submits that the Report of seizure and arrest dated 14.03.2017 made by Benjamin Lalruattluanga, Sub-Inspector, Excise & Narcotics Department, is to the effect that the seized drugs were recovered from the physical possession of the appellant. As the drugs were recovered from the physical possession of the appellant, Section 50 of the ND & PS Act, which required the officer to inform the appellant that she was about to be searched, had not been complied with. He accordingly submits that failure of the Seizing Officer, to inform the appellant about her rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, vitiated the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the learned Trial Court. In support of his submission, he relies upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, 1999 6 SCC 172.