Conscious possession under the NDPS Act sustains conviction where control and awareness of contraband are proved and presumptions remain unrebutted.

Conscious possession under the NDPS Act requires proof of physical control over contraband together with awareness of its presence. On the proved facts, the appellant was travelling with three cartons, one placed under his seat and the others close to him, and his denial of knowledge was rejected. Once conscious possession was established, the statutory presumption under Section 54 applied, supported by the presumption regarding culpable mental state under Section 35, and the appellant failed to rebut it. The conviction was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was in conscious possession of the poppy husk recovered from the three cartons, so as to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The recovery was made after prior information was reduced into writing and the appellant was found travelling with three cartons, one of which was under his seat and the other two were placed close to him. The Court held that possession under the NDPS Act must be established by the prosecution as conscious possession, meaning physical control coupled with awareness of the contraband. On the facts proved, the appellant's explanation that he had no knowledge of the cartons was found unacceptable. Once conscious possession was established, the statutory presumption under Section 54 became applicable, and the appellant failed to account satisfactorily for the contraband. The Court also referred to Section 35 in support of the presumption relating to culpable mental state.

Conclusion: The conviction was rightly sustained because the appellant was proved to be in conscious possession of the contraband and the presumption under the NDPS Act was not rebutted.

---