NDPS recovery from vehicle: marginal sample-weight difference and a Section 313 denial did not defeat conscious possession.

A marginal difference between the sample weight taken at the spot and the laboratory weight was not treated as material where the recovery evidence was otherwise trustworthy, so the discrepancy did not vitiate the prosecution case. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was held applicable to personal search, not to recovery from a vehicle, and the accused was sufficiently informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Once possession of the contraband was established, conscious possession was presumed; the passenger's statement under Section 313 CrPC could not by itself rebut that presumption. The conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a small discrepancy between the weight of the sample taken at the spot and the weight recorded in the laboratory rendered the prosecution case doubtful; (ii) whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was attracted and complied with when the contraband was recovered from a vehicle; and (iii) whether the passenger was in conscious possession of the contraband and could rely on his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to deny possession.

Issue (i): Whether a small discrepancy between the weight of the sample taken at the spot and the weight recorded in the laboratory rendered the prosecution case doubtful.

Analysis: The sample was drawn with a common weighing scale obtained from a grocery shop, whereas the laboratory used a precision scale. In those circumstances, a marginal difference in weight by itself was held not to be material, especially when the recovery evidence was otherwise found trustworthy. The authorities cited on weight discrepancy were distinguished on their facts.

Conclusion: The discrepancy in sample weight did not vitiate the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was attracted and complied with when the contraband was recovered from a vehicle.

Analysis: Section 50 applies to the search of a person and not to the search of a vehicle. Since the contraband was recovered from the vehicle, the provision was not required to be invoked for the search itself. In any event, giving the accused the option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was treated as communication of the right contemplated by the provision.

Conclusion: There was no violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Drugs Act, 1985 in the facts of the case.

Issue (iii): Whether the passenger was in conscious possession of the contraband and could rely on his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to deny possession.

Analysis: Once possession was established, conscious possession could be presumed under the statutory scheme, and the burden shifted to the accused to show otherwise. A statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not evidence and could not by itself establish the defence that the passenger had merely taken a lift. The surrounding circumstances supported possession by both occupants of the vehicle.

Conclusion: The passenger was held to be in conscious possession, and the defence based on the Section 313 statement was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A marginal sample-weight discrepancy is not fatal when the seizure is otherwise reliable; Section 50 governs personal search and not vehicle search; and once possession of contraband is proved, conscious possession may be presumed unless satisfactorily rebutted by the accused.

---