Conscious possession in NDPS cases requires reliable proof; acquittal stands where recovery evidence is doubtful and two views exist.

An acquittal in an NDPS prosecution was upheld because the evidence did not establish conscious possession of the recovered contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The independent witness did not fully support the recovery version, denied material parts of it, and the scooter was not shown to be owned by the accused. The alleged transfer of possession through a cousin was not proved, the handling of the seal was deficient, another independent witness was not examined, and the investigation was conducted by the complainant himself. In an appeal against acquittal, where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused ordinarily prevails, so the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act called for interference in appeal, and whether the evidence established conscious possession of the recovered contraband beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The independent witness did not fully support the prosecution version, denied material parts of the recovery story, and stated that the scooter was not shown to be in the accused's ownership. The Court also noted that the scooter was not registered in the accused's name, the alleged transfer of possession through the accused's cousin was not proved by examining that person, and the prosecution version suffered from deficiencies regarding the handling of the seal, non-examination of another independent witness, and the conduct of investigation by the complainant himself. In an appeal against acquittal, where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily prevail.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

---