NDPS recovery must be reliable before Section 54 presumption applies; hostile witnesses made conviction unsustainable.

Conviction under the NDPS Act could not stand where the alleged recovery itself was rendered doubtful by hostile independent witnesses and gaps in the prosecution timeline. The informant-cum-investigating officer asserted compliance with the search and seizure procedure, but the named witnesses denied participation in the search, seizure, weighing and sampling, and explained their signatures on the papers. As the foundational fact of possession was not reliably proved, the statutory presumption under Section 54 could not be invoked against the accused. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the search and seizure were seriously doubted on the evidence of the independent witnesses turning hostile and the prosecution version lacked reliable corroboration.

Analysis: The police officer who was both informant and investigating officer claimed compliance with the statutory procedure and recovery of ganja from the boot of the car. However, the two independent witnesses named in the official documents denied participation in the search, seizure, weighing and sampling, and gave an explanation for their signatures appearing on the papers. The timeline projected by the investigating officer also left material gaps about the presence and availability of those witnesses. In these circumstances, the foundational fact of recovery itself became doubtful. Since the presumption under Section 54 can arise only after a reliable recovery from possession is established, the burden could not shift to the accused on a shaky prosecution foundation.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---