Conscious possession and statutory presumption under narcotics law upheld where accused failed to rebut knowledge of opium custody.

Possession of opium under Section 9(a) was construed as possession with knowledge, so mere physical custody without awareness would not by itself constitute the offence. Section 10 was held to raise a presumption once the prosecution proved that the accused was directly concerned with the opium or had physical custody of it, requiring the accused to rebut conscious possession on a preponderance of probability. On the facts, the accused had received delivery of the parcel and was in physical custody of the opium, but failed to establish bona fide ignorance or any exonerating circumstance. The conviction under Section 9(a) was therefore upheld because the statutory presumption was not displaced.

---

---

Issues: Whether conviction for possession of opium under Section 9(a) could be sustained where the accused was shown to have physical custody of the parcel but claimed absence of knowledge, and whether Section 10 placed the burden on the accused to account for the opium.

Analysis: Possession under Section 9(a) was construed as possession with knowledge, since mere physical custody without awareness would not by itself satisfy the statutory concept of possession. At the same time, Section 10 was held to create a presumption in prosecutions under Section 9 once the prosecution proved that the accused was directly concerned with the opium or had physical custody of it. In that situation, the accused had to prove, on a preponderance of probability, that he was not knowingly in possession or that other circumstances exonerated him. On the facts, the accused had obtained delivery of the parcel and was found in physical custody of the opium, but he did not set up a case of bona fide ignorance.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 9(a) was upheld because the statutory presumption under Section 10 applied, and the accused failed to rebut it by showing lack of conscious possession.

---