Untested seized substance cannot be presumed narcotic; small-quantity recovery and personal consumption support Section 27 treatment.

Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was treated as a factual question, and the concurrent findings rejecting the search challenge were not disturbed. On possession, only one seized piece was chemically tested; the untested residue could not be presumed to be charas without positive proof, so recovery of 12 grams was not established. The proved quantity was below the small-quantity threshold, and the surrounding circumstances indicated personal consumption rather than sale or distribution. The statutory exception under Section 27 therefore applied, the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) could not stand, and the conviction and sentence were reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and seizure were vitiated for want of compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved possession of 12 gms. of charas, and if not, whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the search and seizure were vitiated for want of compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: Compliance with Section 50 depends on the evidence and is essentially a question of fact. The courts below had examined the evidence and rejected the challenge to the search. The record was also reappraised and no reason was found to disturb those factual findings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-compliance with Section 50 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved possession of 12 gms. of charas, and if not, whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: Only one of the seized pieces was sent for chemical analysis. The report established charas in that sample, but no expert evidence proved that the other untested piece also contained charas. In the absence of proof that both pieces were charas, it was unsafe to hold that 12 gms. were recovered. The proven quantity was less than 5 gms., which fell within the statutory concept of small quantity. The surrounding circumstances, including the pouch, chillum, smoking material, and the appellant's own plea, showed personal consumption rather than sale or distribution. The burden under Section 27 was therefore satisfied on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to be dealt with under Section 27, and the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was altered from the graver offence to the lesser offence under Section 27, with the sentence correspondingly reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: When only part of a seized substance is chemically tested, the untested residue cannot be presumed to be the same narcotic substance without positive proof; where the proved quantity is a small quantity and the surrounding circumstances show personal consumption, the statutory exception applies.

---