https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353326 Recovery of narcotic substance from a bag carried by an accused did not attract the personal-search safeguard under Section 50, and the Court found substantial compliance with the requirements on information, sealing, sampling, custody, and reporting. The absence of independent witnesses did not by itself discredit the police evidence. Once possession of the contraband was proved, the presumption of conscious possession under Section 35 applied, and the accused failed to rebut it. The driver's conduct and movement with the pillion rider supported knowledge and participation. On these facts, the recovery was treated as valid and conscious possession was established against both accused, so the convictions and sentences were affirmed. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jan 2018 08:32:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353326 Recovery of narcotic substance from a bag carried by an accused did not attract the personal-search safeguard under Section 50, and the Court found substantial compliance with the requirements on information, sealing, sampling, custody, and reporting. The absence of independent witnesses did not by itself discredit the police evidence. Once possession of the contraband was proved, the presumption of conscious possession under Section 35 applied, and the accused failed to rebut it. The driver's conduct and movement with the pillion rider supported knowledge and participation. On these facts, the recovery was treated as valid and conscious possession was established against both accused, so the convictions and sentences were affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353326