NDPS search safeguards and commercial quantity recovery sustained conviction where reliable evidence remained unrebutted and no perversity was shown.

Recovery of commercial quantity contraband was proved through reliable, unrebutted evidence, and the search was conducted in a public place in the presence of a gazetted officer after the accused was offered the requisite option. The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with the NDPS search safeguards failed because the prosecution evidence supported compliance on the facts and the affidavit relied on by the accused was not proved by its deponent. The concurrent findings of the courts below were not shown to be perverse or arbitrary, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was sustainable in view of the evidence and the alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 43 and 50 of that Act.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence established that the recovery was effected in a public place, that the search was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer after offering the appellant the requisite option, and that the contraband recovered was of commercial quantity. The appellant adduced no defence evidence and the affidavit relied upon by him was not proved by examination and cross-examination of its deponent. The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on unrebutted evidence and no perversity or arbitrariness was shown to warrant interference in appeal.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and the challenge to compliance with the NDPS search safeguards failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When the prosecution proves lawful recovery of commercial quantity contraband through reliable, unrebutted evidence and the search safeguards applicable on the facts are shown to have been complied with, concurrent findings of conviction do not call for interference in appeal.

---