https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211760 Bombay HC held that conscious possession of heroin could be inferred from the appellant's control over the checked baggage, supported by claim tags, keys, opening of the suitcases, panchnama, chemical reports and intact sealing; minor discrepancies did not weaken the prosecution case, so the substantive NDPS convictions were maintained. It further held that Section 42 did not apply to the airport baggage search on these facts, and no fatal non-compliance was shown. However, the retracted custodial statement under Section 67, without independent corroboration, could not sustain abetment or conspiracy, so the conviction under Section 29 was set aside and the sentence was modified accordingly. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211760 Bombay HC held that conscious possession of heroin could be inferred from the appellant's control over the checked baggage, supported by claim tags, keys, opening of the suitcases, panchnama, chemical reports and intact sealing; minor discrepancies did not weaken the prosecution case, so the substantive NDPS convictions were maintained. It further held that Section 42 did not apply to the airport baggage search on these facts, and no fatal non-compliance was shown. However, the retracted custodial statement under Section 67, without independent corroboration, could not sustain abetment or conspiracy, so the conviction under Section 29 was set aside and the sentence was modified accordingly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211760