TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s traveling in Bhopal Rajkot 1270 up train in the gallery of the bathroom at the last compartment of General Coach, carrying three separate cartoon packets. He is sitting on one of them. This information was entered in General Diary no. 2381 on 29.12.96 and to confirm the information constable Braj Mohan was sent to summon witnesses Rakesh and Prakash and they were made aware of the information received from the informer. The panchnama of the information of the information was prepared. Headquarter of senior officials of Railway Region Indore is in Indore. As per the Information, on the possibility of the alteration of article and for the confirmation of the said information being necessary and looking at the circumstances, the search warrant could not be received whose panchnama has been prepared. Two copies of the panchnama of the information of the informer, in the situation of not receiving the search warrant the copy of the panchnama under section 42 of NDPS Act was sent to Superintendent of Police Railway, Indore through constable Dispatch rider no. 6735 of police station on 29.12.96. As per the information mentioned in General Diary No., reached along with Head Constab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs 3500/- thus he was found possessing these articles Illegally and on stating of not finding in written or by any proof, the seizure memo was prepared. The copy of the panchnama was made. Since I was not having the seal with my name so the action done at the place of occurrence was affixed with the seal of police station. The samples from the packets of the seized Opium poppy husk where article A - 1 A - 2 B - 1 B - 2 C - 1 and C-2 were marked and to send them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination; a sample comprising of 250 grams each were taken out from each of the cartoons. The criminal case under section 8/15 of NDPS Act is found on the aforesaid action made against Rakesh at the place of occurrence. Due to this reason, panchnama was prepared. Thus on panchnama of the action conducted at the aforesaid place of occurrence and as per the details of the seizure articles of the case along with the accused Rakesh are being produced to police station for further action. Please do the further action. On the basis of the aforesaid written information and the seizure made at the place of occurrence and from other documents, a criminal case under section 8/15 of NDPS ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal also came to be dismissed. 7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. 8. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Trial Court as well as the High Court committed a serious error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence under the NDPS Act. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband. According to the learned counsel, when the officers asked him to come out of the coach with the three cartons he was left with no option but to abide by the directions of the officers and that is how he got down from the coach with the three cartons. According to the learned counsel otherwise he had nothing to do with the three cartons. The Learned counsel would submit that the search was carried out at a public place like a railway platform. There were many passengers in the train and the three cartons could have belonged to any one of the passengers. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel the appellant deserves to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther person sitting at the back of the truck made themselves scarce after seeing the police and the prosecution could not establish their identity. It is quite probable that one of them could be the custodian of goods whether or not he was the proprietor. The persons who were merely sitting on the bags, in the absence of proof of anything more, cannot be presumed to be in possession of the goods. For instance, if they are labourers engaged merely for loading and unloading purposes and there is nothing to show that the goods were at least in their temporary custody, conviction under Section 15 may not be warranted. At best, they may be abettors, but, there is no such charge here. True, their silence and failure to explain the circumstances in which they were traveling in the vehicle at the odd hours, is one strong circumstance that can be put against them. A case of drawing presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could perhaps be made out then to prove the possession of the accused, but, the fact remains that in the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, not even a question was asked that they were the persons in possession of poppy husk placed in the vehicl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting element to attract the offence alleged against the accused, the prosecution could not have claimed to have established the guilt of the accused under Section 15 of the NDPs Act beyond the reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 15 NDPS Act was reversed by this Court. 14. Thus, before the Court holds the accused guilty of the offence under the NDPS Act, possession is something that the prosecution needs to establish with cogent evidence. If the accused is found to be in possession of any contraband which is a narcotic drug, it is for the accused to account for such possession satisfactorily, if not, the presumption under Section 54 comes into place. 15. Section 54 of the NDPS Act being relevant in the context on hand is extracted hereunder for convenient reference: "54. Presumption from possession of illicit articles. -In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of - (a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; (b) any opium poppy, cannabis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rove otherwise. This shifts the burden of proof onto the accused to demonstrate that they lacked knowledge or intent regarding the possession of the drugs. 21. Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness. This concept has evolved primarily through judicial interpretation since the term "conscious possession" is not explicitly defined in the NDPS Act. This Court through various of its decisions has repeatedly underscored that possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature. 22. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in 2000 (2) SCC 513, this Court highlighted that once the prosecution proves physical possession, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how he came into possession of the contraband and prove that he was not aware of its presence or....