Conscious possession under the NDPS Act turns on control of the vehicle, but conviction needs proof of knowledge for each accused.

Physical control of a vehicle carrying narcotics can trigger the statutory presumption of conscious possession under the NDPS Act, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut it. On the facts discussed, the driver's control over the truck, the recovery of ganja from the cabin, and his failure to offer a plausible explanation supported constructive possession, so his conviction was maintained with only a limited modification to the default sentence on fine. By contrast, the helper's conviction could not stand because the prosecution failed to prove his role, knowledge, or link with the contraband by independent evidence, and he was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the material on record established that the driver was in conscious possession of the narcotic substance recovered from the truck so as to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act. (ii) Whether the helper's conviction could be sustained on the evidence led by the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the material on record established that the driver was in conscious possession of the narcotic substance recovered from the truck so as to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the driver had physical control of the truck, had transported it after loading lawful goods, and the contraband was later recovered from the cabin in substantial quantity. The driver did not give any plausible explanation as to how the three bags of ganja came to be loaded in the vehicle under his control. On proof of physical possession, the statutory presumption regarding conscious possession operated and the burden shifted to the driver to rebut it. The surrounding circumstances and his own admissions supported constructive possession.

Conclusion: The conviction of the driver was upheld and the sentence was maintained, with only the default sentence on fine being modified.

Issue (ii): Whether the helper's conviction could be sustained on the evidence led by the prosecution.

Analysis: The prosecution did not establish when or by whom the helper was engaged, what role he played, or any prior link with the transportation of contraband. His name did not figure in the secret information, and no independent evidence showed that he shared knowledge or control of the narcotics. The conviction rested substantially on circumstances insufficient to prove exclusive or conscious possession, and the benefit of doubt had to go to him.

Conclusion: The helper's conviction and sentence were set aside and he was acquitted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the conviction of one appellant was affirmed with a limited modification in the default sentence, while the other appellant was granted relief and released.

Ratio Decidendi: Once physical possession and control over a vehicle carrying narcotics are established, the presumption of conscious possession applies and the accused must rebut it, but conviction cannot be sustained against a person whose knowledge or control over the contraband is not proved by independent evidence.

---