Possession-based narcotic conviction fails where ownership of the premises is not proved by reliable independent evidence.

A conviction for possession-based narcotic offences could not stand because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused owned or was in actual possession of the flat from which contraband was seized. Section 66 of the NDPS Act could be invoked only after ownership or possession was established by reliable independent evidence, but no corroboration came from the registrar, neighbours, or any other source, and one attesting witness did not support the case. The alleged agreement, police information, and retracted statements were insufficient on their own, so the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant owned or was in possession of the flat from which the contraband was seized so as to sustain the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The conviction rested on the alleged agreement recovered from the premises, the information received by the officers, and the appellant's retracted statements. Section 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could not be applied unless the prosecution first established that the appellant was the owner or in actual possession of the flat. No independent evidence was produced from the registrar's office, neighbors, or any other source to prove ownership or possession. One attesting witness did not support the prosecution. In these circumstances, the uncorroborated and retracted statements were insufficient to connect the appellant with the premises.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove ownership or possession of the flat by the appellant, and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained; the appeal succeeded and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for possession-based narcotic offences cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves ownership or actual possession of the premises by reliable independent evidence, and a retracted statement or unproved document by itself is insufficient.

---