Conscious possession under the NDPS Act requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; defective investigation cannot sustain conviction.

Conscious possession must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt before the NDPS Act presumption can arise. On the facts described, the investigation was defective: the alleged sale agreement was not examined, panchayat records were not properly verified, and the witness best placed to speak to ownership and possession was not examined. Mere reliance on a voters list entry was insufficient to establish possession or disprove the appellant's claim. The evidence was therefore held inadequate, the concurrent findings were said to rest on conjecture and misappreciation of evidence, and the conviction was unsustainable, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved conscious possession of the house and contraband by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The conviction rested on the appellant's alleged ownership of the house from which ganja was recovered, but the evidence showed a defective and incomplete investigation. The sale agreement produced by the appellant was not investigated, the panchayat records were not properly verified, and the witness best placed to speak on ownership and possession was not examined. The presumption under the NDPS Act is rebuttable and can operate only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, including possession, beyond reasonable doubt. Mere reliance on a voters list entry, without proving conscious possession or disproving the sale agreement, was insufficient. The evidence led by the prosecution did not meet the required standard and the concurrent findings were based on conjectures and misappreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---