Conscious possession under NDPS law and intact sealed samples sustained conviction despite minor discrepancies and laboratory delay

Possession under NDPS law may be physical or constructive and requires knowledge and control; once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to explain it. The SC found the respondents were in conscious possession of contraband because they were sitting on bags, attempted to hide on seeing police, and offered no satisfactory explanation. Minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence and a seven-day delay in sending sealed samples to the laboratory were held not material absent proof of tampering or prejudice. The acquittal was therefore found perverse and unsustainable, and the trial court conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents were in conscious possession of the contraband recovered from the bags on which they were sitting; and (ii) whether minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the delay in sending samples to the laboratory were sufficient to sustain the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were in conscious possession of the contraband recovered from the bags on which they were sitting.

Analysis: Possession under the NDPS law requires knowledge and control, and may be physical or constructive. Once possession is shown, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how they came to be in possession of the contraband. The respondents were found sitting on a large number of bags, attempted to hide behind them on seeing the police party, and gave no satisfactory explanation for their presence. The documentary and oral evidence also supported the conclusion that the bags were in their possession.

Conclusion: The respondents were in conscious possession of the contraband.

Issue (ii): Whether minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the delay in sending samples to the laboratory were sufficient to sustain the acquittal.

Analysis: The discrepancies relied upon were held to be minor and not material to the core prosecution case. The seal was found intact, the samples were properly sealed, and there was no evidence of tampering with the case property. A mere delay of about seven days in forwarding the samples to the laboratory, without proof of prejudice or tampering, was not fatal to the prosecution.

Conclusion: The acquittal could not be sustained on the basis of the alleged discrepancies or the delay in sending samples.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was found to be perverse and unsustainable, and the conviction recorded by the trial court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS , once possession and control over the contraband are established, the accused must explain the possession, and minor inconsistencies or unexplained delay in sending sealed samples, without proof of tampering, do not by themselves vitiate the prosecution case.

---