Charas recovery from baggage, not personal search, supported conscious possession and use of entire weight for quantity determination.

Recovery of charas from checked-in baggage, effected with the appellant's key and supported by witness testimony and sealing proceedings, was treated as proof of possession and control, triggering the statutory presumption of conscious possession under the NDPS Act. A baggage search was held not to attract Section 50 as a personal search, especially where the appellant was informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and chose search by a customs officer. For charas, the entire recovered weight, not THC content alone, governs commercial-quantity determination. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovery of charas from the appellant's checked-in baggage established conscious possession and culpability under the NDPS Act. (ii) Whether the search was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. (iii) Whether, for determining commercial quantity in respect of charas, only the THC content could be considered instead of the entire recovered quantity.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery of charas from the appellant's checked-in baggage established conscious possession and culpability under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The search was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses, the baggage was opened with the key carried by the appellant, and the recovery from the hidden compartments of the suitcase was consistently spoken to by the witnesses. The surrounding circumstances, including the appellant's statement and the corroborative recovery and sealing process, established possession and control over the baggage. Once possession was proved, the statutory presumption operated against the appellant, and the burden shifted to him to rebut conscious possession.

Conclusion: The recovery from the checked-in baggage was proved, and the finding of conscious possession was sustained against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the search was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: Section 50 applies to personal search. The contraband in this case was recovered from the appellant's baggage and not from his person. The notice informed him of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, and he opted for search by a customs officer. In law, a search of a bag, briefcase, or container does not attract Section 50 in the manner of a personal search.

Conclusion: There was no fatal non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Issue (iii): Whether, for determining commercial quantity in respect of charas, only the THC content could be considered instead of the entire recovered quantity.

Analysis: The recovered substance was identified as charas. The Court applied the settled position that, for charas and cannabis-related contraband, the entire recovered weight is relevant for determining the quantity, and the percentage of THC is not by itself determinative of purity or quantity. The authorities relied upon by the appellant relating to mixed narcotic substances were distinguished, and the later law concerning charas and THC was applied.

Conclusion: The entire recovered quantity was rightly taken into account, and the THC percentage did not alter the classification of the contraband.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, recovery of contraband from a person's baggage can establish conscious possession, Section 50 is not attracted to a baggage search as a personal search, and for charas the entire recovered quantity governs the quantity determination rather than THC percentage alone.

---