NDPS proof of possession triggers conscious possession presumption, while joint commercial recovery cannot be split to dilute liability.

In NDPS matters, non-examination of an independent witness does not by itself vitiate the prosecution where police evidence is otherwise credible and no material shows false implication. Recovery evidence, including vehicle ownership, seals and sample drawing, remained reliable because minor discrepancies were treated as immaterial and not shown to cause prejudice. Once possession of contraband is proved, the statutory presumption of conscious possession under Sections 35 and 54 applies, and the accused must rebut it with credible evidence. Section 50 was found inapplicable because there was no personal search, and alleged sampling irregularities did not justify interference. Joint possession of commercial quantity could not be split to reduce the offence below commercial quantity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-examination of the joined independent witness vitiated the prosecution case; (ii) whether the evidence regarding recovery, ownership of the vehicle, seals and sample drawing created a reasonable doubt; (iii) whether conscious possession and applicability of the reverse burden under the NDPS Act were established; (iv) whether non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act or alleged irregularity in sampling warranted interference; and (v) whether the quantity recovered could be split to reduce the offence below commercial quantity.

Issue (i): Whether non-examination of the joined independent witness vitiated the prosecution case.

Analysis: The absence of the independent witness did not, by itself, discredit the prosecution. No enmity between the accused and the police witnesses was shown, and no material suggested false implication. Mere reference to the witness being involved in other cases was insufficient to treat him as a stock witness or to reject the police evidence.

Conclusion: The non-examination of the independent witness did not vitiate the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence regarding recovery, ownership of the vehicle, seals and sample drawing created a reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The owner of the vehicle supported the prosecution version by stating that the car had been given to the appellant. The presence of shops near the place of recovery did not undermine the recovery witnesses. The condition of the seal and the variation regarding the number of samples were treated as immaterial, since the core recovery evidence remained consistent and was not effectively shaken in cross-examination.

Conclusion: The recovery evidence remained reliable and did not create a reasonable doubt.

Issue (iii): Whether conscious possession and applicability of the reverse burden under the NDPS Act were established.

Analysis: Once possession of contraband was proved, the statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 operated. The appellant failed to displace that presumption by credible evidence. The defence version that he was a student or falsely implicated was not proved. The finding of possession therefore supported conscious possession.

Conclusion: Conscious possession was established and the burden under the NDPS Act was not rebutted.

Issue (iv): Whether non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act or alleged irregularity in sampling warranted interference.

Analysis: The Court found that the case did not involve personal search, so the plea based on Section 50 was inapplicable. The objection regarding preparation of the CFSL form and sample procedure also failed because the investigating officer was not specifically challenged on that aspect and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: No merit was found in the pleas of Section 50 non-compliance or sampling irregularity.

Issue (v): Whether the quantity recovered could be split to reduce the offence below commercial quantity.

Analysis: The Court held that where two persons are found jointly in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the recovery cannot be divided between them to convert it into a non-commercial quantity for either accused.

Conclusion: The recovered quantity could not be bifurcated to dilute the offence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and no ground for interference in the appeal was found.

Ratio Decidendi: Once possession of contraband is proved under the NDPS Act, the statutory presumption of conscious possession applies, and a joint recovery of commercial quantity cannot be split to reduce the offence below commercial quantity.

---