Scientific report admissibility and conscious possession under NDPS law depend on timely objection and credible search evidence.

A scientific report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory was treated as admissible under Section 293 CrPC, and an objection to its admissibility or mode of proof raised only at the appellate stage was not entertained where the report had been received without earlier challenge. The commentary also notes that conscious possession of poppy husk under the NDPS Act may be established through credible oral and documentary evidence, including trustworthy search and seizure witnesses, and compliance with the search safeguard by offering the accused the option of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 50. On that reasoning, the scientific evidence and seizure were relied upon to sustain conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the chemical examiner's report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, signed by a Senior Scientific Assistant, was admissible in evidence despite objection being raised only at the appellate stage. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession of poppy husk by the accused in compliance with the requirements of the NDPS Act.

Issue (i): Whether the chemical examiner's report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, signed by a Senior Scientific Assistant, was admissible in evidence despite objection being raised only at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The report was treated as a document falling within the evidentiary framework of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that, in criminal proceedings, the question of admissibility and mode of proof cannot be waived by consent in the manner suggested for civil cases. However, where such a report is tendered and admitted without objection as to its admissibility or proof, the accused cannot be permitted to challenge it for the first time in appeal. On that basis, the report was accepted as proving the nature of the recovered substance.

Conclusion: The report was held admissible and could be relied upon against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession of poppy husk by the accused in compliance with the requirements of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the search and seizure was accepted as trustworthy, being supported by multiple witnesses and contemporaneous documents. The accused was offered the option of search before a Gazetted Officer or a Metropolitan Magistrate, satisfying the procedural safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The seizure from the accused's possession was therefore found to be duly established and the Court affirmed the finding of conscious possession.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved conscious possession of the contraband by the accused.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained because the scientific report was properly relied upon and the seizure from the accused's conscious possession was proved in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal trial, a scientific report admitted without objection to its admissibility or mode of proof cannot later be assailed in appeal, and proof of conscious possession under the NDPS Act can be sustained on credible oral and documentary evidence showing compliance with the mandatory search safeguards.

---