Appellate review of acquittal upheld conviction for conscious possession under NDPS law, with sentence reduced.

In an appeal against acquittal, the SC reaffirmed that the appellate court may reappreciate evidence and interfere where the trial court's view is not a possible view. Applying that standard, it upheld the conviction, finding conscious possession of charas established through control over the dhaba counter and knowledge of the contraband. It further held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal search, that the sealed and signed parcels reduced any risk of tampering, and that the accused failed to rebut the Section 54 presumption. The custodial sentence was reduced from 15 years to 10 years, while the fine was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the accused on reappreciation of evidence; (ii) Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession of the seized charas and whether the safeguards relating to search and sampling vitiated the conviction; (iii) Whether the sentence of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,00,000 required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the accused on reappreciation of evidence.

Analysis: The appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence in an appeal against acquittal. Where the trial court's view is found to be contrary to the evidence on record and not a possible view, interference is permissible. The Court found the trial court's conclusions to be erroneous on the facts proved by the prosecution witnesses and held that the High Court correctly reassessed the evidence.

Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was upheld and the conviction was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession of the seized charas and whether the safeguards relating to search and sampling vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: The charas was found at the counter of the dhaba controlled by the accused, on land belonging to his wife, and the evidence established knowledge as well as physical control over the contraband. The Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal search and, therefore, its alleged non-compliance did not assist the accused. It also found no real possibility of tampering with samples, since the parcels were signed and sealed, and the accused failed to explain the possession or rebut the statutory presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.

Conclusion: Conscious possession was proved, the search and sampling objections failed, and the conviction was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence of 15 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,00,000 required interference.

Analysis: While affirming the conviction, the Court took note of the age of the accused, the passage of time since the , and the peculiar facts of the case. On that basis, it found the original sentence excessive, though the fine and conviction were not disturbed.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment while the fine was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for the NDPS offence was maintained, but the custodial sentence was scaled down in view of the mitigating circumstances, resulting in only partial relief to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may interfere where the trial court's view is not a possible view on the evidence; in NDPS cases, possession may be inferred from conscious control and knowledge, Section 50 applies only to personal search, and the statutory presumption under Section 54 operates unless satisfactorily rebutted.

---