Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Both the appeals are against the judgment of conviction dated 20th May, 2013 of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati in Sessions (Special) Case No. 235(K)/2009, convicting the 3(three) accused/appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, "1985 Act") and under Section 29 of the said Act, respectively. Consequent upon such conviction, the appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh), each, and in default further simple imprisonment of l(one) year. While the accused/appellant Sanju Khan @ Sanju Haque involved in Criminal Appeal No. 143/2013 has been convicted with the aforesaid sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the 1985 Act, the other 2(two) appellants, namely, Vika Achumi and Kibito Sumi alongwith another, namely, Tarun Mech, have been convicted for the offence under Section 29(1) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the said Act. Both the appeals have been heard analogously. While Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel argued on behalf of the appellant, Sanju Khan @ Sanju Haque, involved in Criminal Appeal No. 143/2013, Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel argued on behalf of the other 2(two) appellants, namely, Vika Achumi and Kibito Sumi, involved in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013. Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel, Central Excise & Customs argued on behalf of the respondents.

2. As the prosecution story goes, on receipt of specific information by the DRI Officials to the effect that in the early morning of 11th July, 2009, one olive green coloured Eicher truck bearing registration No. NL-11/6061 left Dimapur carrying more than 300 Kgs. of Manipuri Ganja concealed under the loads of bags of rice and rice husk with 6/7 persons wearing fake Army uniform for proceeding towards Calcutta via Jorabat, a team of Officers of DRI proceeded towards Jorabat to intercept the vehicle. At about 1300 hours while the said truck reached Jorabat, the DRI Officers signaled the truck to stop but the driver sped away towards Guwaahti. Immediately the DRI Officials alongwith the Assam Police personnel of Jorabat Police Station intercepted and seized the truck at 8th Mile, Jorabat at about 1:45 PM. On being enquired by the DRI Officials, the driver of the truck identified himself as Sanju Khan and confessed that the truck was loaded with Ganja and that there were other 6(six) occupants in the truck. He also admitted that they were coming from Dimapur for going to Calcutta. On being so informed, all the 6(six) occupants alongwith the driver were asked to come down from the truck and accordingly, all of them came down and surrendered before the Officers. They also handed over their identity cards and driving license etc. Thereafter, the DRI Officers in presence of appellant, Sanju Khan, and 2(two) independent witnesses searched to driver's cabin of the truck and recovered one.32 mm pistol fitted with Magazine and loaded with 6(six) rounds of ammunitions. They also recovered from the intercepted truck, huge quantities of Ganja blocks wrapped with polythene kept hidden under the load of bags of rice and rice husk and also in the artificially made secret chamber behind the driver's cabin. Accordingly, the DLR Officers took possession of the intercepted truck alongwith the recovered goods and took the truck alongwith the recovered articles and all the 7(seven) occupants to the Jorabat Police Station for further checking, weighment and completion of the required formalities, where the truck was unloaded with the help of some labours in presence of accused Sanju and 2(two) independent witnesses. There was recovery of 25 bags of rice; 30 bags of rice husk and 330 packets of Ganja wrapped with polythene and after weighing those, it was found that there were 1000 Kgs. of rice in 25 bags; 750 Kgs. of rice husks in 30 bags and 6427.90 Kgs. of Ganja in 330 packets.

With the aforesaid recovery, DRI Case No. 03/NARC/Ganja/DRI/GAU/2009-10 dated 11th July, 2009 was registered with the subsequent lodging of final complaint. Thereafter, Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 235(K)/2009 was registered. The complaint was lodged by the complainant Union of India represented by DRI Officer, Shri Dabajyoti Sarma, against 7(seven) accused persons, namely, Shri Sanju Khan @ Sanju Haque (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 143/2013); Shri Kuheto Zhimoni; Shri Tiku Boro @ Admari; Shri Tarun Mech; Shri Vika Achumi (appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013); Shri Kibito Sumi (appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013); Shri Sindy Mech and one Baharuddin.

3. After registering the complaint case as Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 235(K)/2009, the same was transferred to the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. All the 7(seven) accused persons, named above, barring Baharuddin, were produced before the Court and they were furnished with the necessary copies. Accused Baharuddin was shown absconder in the final Form and the learned trial Court after proving P/A declared the said accused as proclaimed absconder. Upon framing of the charge under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of the 1985 Act against the accused persons with independent charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act- against the accused Sanju, the same were read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, accused Shri Kuheto Zhimoni and Shri Sindy Mech were granted bail. Being enlarged on bail, they did not turn up to face trial and accordingly their case was split up and proceeding continued against the other accused persons alongwith accused Tiku Boro, who was eventually found to be juvenile and, therefore, his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. During trial, the prosecution examined 8(eight) witnesses while the defence did not adduce any evidence. However, their plea was that of total denial. The learned trial Court posing the following points for determination and having answered the same as discussed in the impugned judgment resulting in conviction and sentence of the accused/appellants, as aforesaid, they have preferred these 2(two) appeals:

"(i) Whether on last 11.07.2009 at around 1:00 P.M., at Jorabat, the accused persons were found illegally transporting and possessing 6427.9 Kgs. of ganja which is a commercial quantity in contravention of the provision of Under Section 8(c) N.D.P.C. Act and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act?

(ii) Whether on the same day and time the accused persons abets or in pursuance of criminal conspiracy committed the offence and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S. 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act?

(iii) Whether on 11.07.2009 at about 1:00 P.M. the accused Sri Sanju Khan @ Sanju Haque was found possessing one.32 mm bore revolver along with six round live ammunition without any valid license and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act-

5. Ms. Nargis, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sanju Khan, strenuously argued that the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable, as there was noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 52A of the 1985 Act. The same was also the argument of Mr. Uddin, learned counsel representing the other 2(two) appellants involved in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013. In support of their such submission while referring to the evidence, they also placed reliance on certain decisions, which are Union of India v. Bal Mukund & Ors. reported in : (2009) 12 SCC 161; Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana reported in : (2011) 8 SCC 130; Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in : (2011) 5 SCC 123; Dilip & Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in : AIR 2007 SC 369; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in : (2008) 16 SCC 417; State of Delhi v. Ram Avtar @ Rama reported in : (2011) 12 SCC 207; Elavarasan v. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in : (2011) 7 SCC 110; Arjun Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in : (2009) 4 SCC 18 and Sh. Chanam Ranjit Meitei v. Union of India reported in : 2010 (3) GLT 361.

6. Referring to the first 3(three) decisions, it was submitted by Ms. Nargis, learned counsel that it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to reduce into writing the information that was purportedly received pursuant to which the truck in question was intercepted. On being pointed out to the evidence on record depicting that the information received was reduced into writing, she submitted that it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to produce such writing alongwith production of the accused persons. In addition to the said submission, Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel representing the other 2(two) appellants submitted that as per the requirement of Section 52A of the 1985 Act, the samples of the truck ought to have been collected in the manner prescribed therein and not randomly. In Bal Mukund (supra), the Apex Court emphasized scrupulous compliance of the provisions of the 1985 Act. In Rajinder Singh (supra), when it was found that there was noncompliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act, the conviction of the appellant was reversed. It was held that when total noncompliance with the provisions of Section 42 is impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can, however, be countenanced.

7. In Ashok (supra), it was held that in the trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of Charas and Ganja were seized from the possession of the accused and that the best evidence would have been to produce the seized materials, during the trial and marked as material objects. In the said case, there was no explanation for the failure to produce them. In Dilip (supra) when it was found that search and seizure was carried out in violation of the provisions of law, the conviction of the accused/appellants was set aside.

8. In Noor Aga (supra), the Apex Court emphasized the need for proper preparation of an inventory of narcotic drugs containing the required details as envisaged under Section 52A. In Ram Avatar (supra), the Apex Court observed that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance therewith should be strictly construed. The theory of "substantial compliance" would not be applicable to such situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect.

In Elavarasan (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the principles relating to the doctrine of burden of proof. In Arjun Singh (supra), dealing with the meaning of abetment, in the given facts and circumstances, it was held that the offence of abetment was not made out. In Sh. Chanam Ranjit Meitei (supra), this Court noticing that the evidence did not suggest that the samples were drawn from each and every packet of the seized Ganja and prepared a separate sample packet for sending it to FSL, held that there was noncompliance of the provisions of Section 52A.

9. It is not the case of the defence and for that matter, the present accused/appellants that they were not in the truck in question or that the Ganja was not recovered from the truck. It is also not their case that they were not found wearing fake army uniform and that they were also travelling in the truck with a fake movement order. What they have pleaded is that there was contravention of the provisions of Sections 42 and 52 of the Act, insofar as the same relate to the requirement of reducing the information into writing and taking the samples in the manner prescribed under Section 52 of the Act.

10. To appreciate the above points in reference to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, let us now refer to the evidence on record.

Pw-1 in his evidence narrated the incident referred to above and as to how Ganja packets were recovered from the truck. He, in his evidence, stated that the Ganja packets were hidden under rice and rice husk bags. They were also found hidden in specially made chamber. All the accused persons surrendered with their fake identity cards and the fake movement order shown issued from Nagaland Police. This witness further stated about bringing the truck to the Jorabat Police Station and as to how the recovered Ganja packets were weighted. According to him, the packets were weighted one by one and separate weighmen list was prepared and the total weight of the Ganja was found to be 6427.9 Kgs. He further stated that 3(three) numbers of samples were drawn in duplicate each weighing 25 Grams from the packets of Ganja at random and the samples were sealed in presence of 2(two) independent witnesses and signatures of all the accused persons and Seizing Officer were also taken on the sealed packets.

11. Pw-2, in his evidence, also referring to the incident stated that while he was working as Deputy Director of Drugs & Narcotic Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, he received a parcel through his Director in connection with the above mentioned DRI case. The parcel consisted of 3(three) exhibits enclosed with an envelope with cloth cover, which was sealed corresponding with the seal impression. He deposed that the 3(three) sealed envelopes were marked as A1, B1 and C1, each containing 25 Grams dry plant materials, which were again marked by him as DN-313/2009(a) to DN-313/09(c), respectively. He categorically stated that upon examination of all the samples as per the United Laboratory Manual, all the exhibits gave positive results of Cannabis (Ganja) and accordingly, he submitted Exhibit-10 report.

12. Pws-3 and 4 are the Officials of DRI, who were party to the interception of the truck and the seizure thereof. They vividly stated about the incident and seizure of the truck and Ganja therefrom and also the.32 mm pistol alongwith 6(six) rounds of ammunitions. In tune with the testimony of PW-1, they also stated about the quantity of Ganja recovered from the truck. PW-5,inhis deposition, stated that on 11th July, 2009, while he was working as Inspector of Customs Department, DRI Officials came to his Office and deposited 330 packets of Ganja wrapped in polythene alongwith inventory in connection with this case. He acknowledged the receipt thereof and weighted the packets of Ganja separately one by one. PW-6, in his deposition, stated that on the day of the incident, i.e. on 11th July, 2009, he was In-charge of Jorabat Police Station. On that day, the DRI Officials came to the Outpost and informed him that the particular vehicle carrying Ganja was coming towards Jorabat, which was required to be stopped. When they were talking about the same, just about that time, the truck in question reached Jorabat but the driver and the occupants did not obey the police signal and sped away. Thereafter, this PW alongwith DRI Officials chased the said truck and intercepted at 8th Mile. He further stated that the inmates were found wearing false army dresses. There were altogether 7(seven) occupants in the intercepted truck. He, in his deposition, also stated as to how the truck was brought to the Jorabat Police Station and Cannabis (Ganja) alongwith rice and rice husk bags were recovered from the truck and weighed thereafter.

Pw-7 is an independent witness, who, in his deposition, narrating the incident stated that on 11th July, 2009, while he was at 8th Mile, saw huge gathering there and found the In-Charge of Jorabat Police Station and DRI Officials present there and on being asked, the DRI Officials told him that Ganja was found in the vehicle. He could also see the occupants of the truck with army dresses. They were all apprehended alongwith the intercepted vehicle and were taken to Jorabat Police Station. He was witness to the seizure and found that more than 300 packets of Ganja, which were weighed in his presence and inventory was also prepared.

13. Pw-8 is another independent witness, who, in his deposition, stated that on 11th July, 2009 police personal recovered Ganja from a truck on the road about 150 Metres away from his residence. He also found all the inmates of the truck wearing army dresses. In the evening, he went to the Jorabat Police Station alongwith PW-7 and the Officer-in-Charge asked him to be witnesses in connection with the case. He also deposed that he saw Ganja unloaded from the truck and saw 7(seven) persons wearing army dresses. Thereafter, these witnesses were taken by the DRI Officials to the Chandmari Office, where the Ganja was weighed in his presence. All the apprehended accused persons were also present.

14. All the PWs were cross-examined by the accused/appellants but could not be contradicted on material facts. The offence was detected by DRI Officials, Guwahati at Jorabat Police Station and after search, the truck bearing registration No. NL-11/6061, which was coming from Dimapur. Huge quantity of Ganja was found loaded in the truck kept concealed under the bags of rice and rice husk. It is not the case of the accused/appellant that they were not occupants of the truck. They were all found in fake army dresses with fake identity cards and movement order. They were all taken to police station alongwith the truck and the articles therein. Total weight of the Ganja was found more than 6400 Kgs. The DRI Officials also recovered one.32 mm Pistol alongwith 6(six) rounds of live ammunitions after searching the driver's cabin of the truck.

Pw-2 in his deposition testified that the samples gave positive test for Cannabis. The seizure list by which the Ganja packets were seized is Exhibit-2. Panchnama was also prepared by the Seizing Officer regarding seized articles (Exhibitt-28). As per the said document, the witnesses of the seizure were Pw-7 and Pw-8, who, in their deposition, stated about the recovery of Ganja from the vehicle. They also saw the occupants of the truck wearing army dresses. They also stated about the number of the packets of Ganja, bags of rice and rice husk, which were also recovered alongwith one.32 mm Pistol. Ganja was weighed in presence of Pw-7. Pw-8 also stated about the recovery of Ganja from the truck on the road. He was a resident of the area and the truck intercepted was at a distance of 150 Metre away from his house. These 2(two) independent witnesses could not contradicted by the defence in their cross-examination.

15. As regards the alleged noncompliance of the requirements of Section 42 of the 1985 Act, the PW-1 adduced specific evidence that the Deputy Director, Shri S.K. Mahanta, gave a specific information to proceed to Jorabat and to intercept an olive green Eicher truck bearing registration No. NL-11/6061 coming from Dimapur. He recorded the said information and instructed the PWs and other independent Officer of DRI to proceed towards Jorabat to intercept the truck. It is in the evidence of PW-1 that the information was reduced into writing and although the same was not produced alongwith production of the accused but the same was submitted alongwith the final Form. It was on the basis of the same, the PW-1 and other Intelligent Officer of DRI proceeded towards Jorabat to intercept the truck. Thus, it cannot be said that the statutory requirement of Section 42 of the 1985 Act was not complied with by the Officer, who received the information.

16. As regards the plea of violation of the procedure laid down in Section 42A of the 1985 Act, it is in the evidence that more than 6400 Kgs. of Ganja were recovered from the truck and accordingly, an inventory was prepared. PW-5 categorically stated about the same and the samples of Ganja so taken were sent to FSL for examination. Coupled with this, the accused/appellants also gave voluntary statement before the DRI Officials vide Exhibit-20; Exhibit-23 and Exhibit-24. PWs-3 and 4 also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 that 3(three) numbers of representative samples were drawn in duplicate each weighing 25 Grams from the packets of Ganja and the samples were sealed in presence of the independent witnesses and signatures of all the accused persons were obtained on sealed packets, which were later on sent for FLS examination. The accused/appellants although thoroughly cross-examined the PWs, but there is nothing discernable of putting up a defence of prejudice being caused to them in any manner.

Mr. Uddin, learned counsel representing the 2(two) appellants involved in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013, on being asked as to why the accused/appellants were in fake uniforms with fake identity cards and movement order, referring to their statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he submitted that they were on the bonafide belief that the other accused, namely, Kuheto Zhimomi and Sindy Mech assured them of job and they had no knowledge as to what the truck had carried. He submitted that in such circumstances these 2(two) accused/appellants are liable to be acquitted.

17. Section 313 Cr.P.C. prescribes a procedural safeguard for an accused, giving him an opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. Needless to say that this opportunity is valuable from the standpoint of the accused. The statutory provision is based on the rules of natural justice for an accused, who must be made aware of the circumstances being put against him so that he can give a proper explanation to meet that case. In the instant cas

e, all the accused/appellants on being explained the circumstances appearing against them stated that they were assured of the job and was not aware that the truck was carrying Ganja. According to them, the job was assured by Kuheto Zhimomi and Sindy Mech. This explanation when tested in reference to the undisputed fact that they were all in fake army uniforms alongwith fake identity cards and movement order, is not at all acceptable. 18. It was argued that the accused/appellant involved in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013 are not abettors of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the 1985 Act and thus, Section 29(1) of the said Act is not attracted. When it is an admitted fact that they were occupants of the truck seized alongwith Cannabis and they were all in fake army uniforms and fake identity cards and movement order, Section 29(1) of the 1985 Act is clearly attracted. Although the said 2(two) appellants thoroughly cross-examined the PWs, nothing contradictory could be brought on record demolishing the prosecution case or even to the extent of any benefit of doubt. As discussed in the impugned judgment of conviction, seized Ganja were recovered from the possession of Sanju Khan in the truck of which the 2(two) accused/appellants involved in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2013 were occupants. They posed themselves as army officials wearing fake army uniforms and also carried fake identity cards and fake movement order. In these circumstances, their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that they had boarded the truck on being assured job is absolutely unbelievable. There is no explanation as to why they put on army dresses and that too fake and carried fake identity cards and movement order. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of convocation. None of the judgments referred to above and placed reliance by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants is of any help to their case. Needless to say that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not for what logically follows from it. 19. Both the appeals stand dismissed upholding the impugned judgment of conviction. Let the LCR be sent down to the learned Court below alongwith a copy of this judgment and order.