Conscious possession in NDPS cases requires exclusive possession, reliable corroboration, and an unbroken chain of custody.

In NDPS prosecutions involving conscious possession, mere presence at the place of recovery is insufficient; the prosecution must establish exclusive possession, reliable independent corroboration, and an unbroken chain of custody for the seized property. The text notes that doubts arose where the independent witness appeared introduced, the alleged tenancy of the premises was not proved by reliable evidence, and the accused were not shown to be in exclusive possession of the room. It also highlights defects in sealing, sample movement, link evidence, and delay in sending samples for chemical examination, which rendered the prosecution evidence unsafe for conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession and recovery of poppy husk from the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of reliable independent corroboration, proof of tenancy and an unbroken chain of custody of the case property.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested mainly on official witnesses, but the Court found serious doubts regarding the raid and recovery. The independent witness was treated as an introduced witness, the alleged tenancy of the premises was not proved by reliable evidence, and the accused were not shown to be in exclusive possession of the room. Mere presence at the spot was held insufficient to establish conscious possession. The Court also noticed material defects in the handling of the case property, including doubts about sealing, sample movement, link evidence and delay in sending samples for chemical examination. In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence was found unsafe to sustain conviction.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charge under the NDPS Act beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused were entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In an NDPS prosecution, where conscious possession is in issue, mere presence at the place of recovery is insufficient; the prosecution must prove exclusive possession, reliable independent corroboration, and an unbroken chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt.

---