Conscious possession under NDPS Act upheld where recovery from residence was proved and defence failed to displace the presumption.

The prosecution proved conscious possession of ganja recovered from the appellant's residence beyond reasonable doubt, because the search officers' evidence established the raid at the house and the recovery of contraband therefrom. The search was treated as falling within Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution was not required to produce the information record absent a defence request. As the defence did not challenge the recovery itself or probabilise the claim that the ganja came from another house, the NDPS presumption was attracted and the appellant failed to displace it. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession and recovery of commercial quantity of ganja from the appellant's house so as to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a conviction for possession of ganja recovered in a raid conducted on the basis of prior information. The evidence of the search officers was accepted as establishing that the search was carried out at the appellant's residence and that the contraband was recovered therefrom, though one witness could not identify the house independently. The Court held that the search was within the scope of Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, and that the prosecution was not required to produce the information record unless the defence called for it. The defence did not challenge the recovery itself, did not seek production of the record of information, and failed to probabilise its plea that the contraband was recovered from some other house. Relying on the principles governing possession under the NDPS Act, the Court held that possession must be understood in a functional and contextual sense and that, on the evidence, the foundational facts were proved. The Court also held that the presumption under the NDPS Act stood attracted once possession was established, and that the appellant had not created a reasonable doubt sufficient to displace the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved recovery and possession beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act were upheld.

---