https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346564 The prosecution proved conscious possession of ganja recovered from the appellant's residence beyond reasonable doubt, because the search officers' evidence established the raid at the house and the recovery of contraband therefrom. The search was treated as falling within Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution was not required to produce the information record absent a defence request. As the defence did not challenge the recovery itself or probabilise the claim that the ganja came from another house, the NDPS presumption was attracted and the appellant failed to displace it. The conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 08:13:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346564 The prosecution proved conscious possession of ganja recovered from the appellant's residence beyond reasonable doubt, because the search officers' evidence established the raid at the house and the recovery of contraband therefrom. The search was treated as falling within Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution was not required to produce the information record absent a defence request. As the defence did not challenge the recovery itself or probabilise the claim that the ganja came from another house, the NDPS presumption was attracted and the appellant failed to displace it. The conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346564