NDPS possession presumptions and benefit of doubt fail where recovery and control are proved on the evidence.

Heroin recovery from a truck and from one appellant's residence was treated as proved on oral and documentary evidence, and the concurrent factual findings below were not disturbed. The claim that the contraband was planted, or that the appellants lacked knowledge and control over the bag and contents, failed on the facts. The statutory presumptions relating to possession under the NDPS Act were held to operate on the proved circumstances, and the defence did not rebut them. The Court reiterated that criminal guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but benefit of doubt does not extend to fanciful or remote possibilities, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 called for interference, and whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt on the basis of alleged infirmities in recovery, statements recorded under section 67, and the evidence of possession and control.

Analysis: The recovery of heroin from the truck and from the residence of one appellant was found to be proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, and the courts below had concurrently accepted the prosecution version. The challenge that the contraband was planted or that the appellants lacked knowledge of the bag and its contents was rejected on the facts. The Court also held that, in the circumstances proved, the statutory presumptions relating to possession under the Act operated and the defence failed to displace them. The standard of criminal proof was reiterated as proof beyond reasonable doubt, not proof beyond all conceivable doubt, and the doctrine of benefit of doubt was held not to extend to fanciful or remote possibilities.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to interference in appeal, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---