Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act for carrying about 50 kg of poppy husk in three cartons on a train. The prosecution proved that he was found sitting on one carton with the other two beside him, and as he gave no satisfactory explanation, the presumptions under Sections 54 and 35 applied and conscious possession was established.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was in conscious possession of the three cartons of poppy husk found with him on a crowded train.
- How the burden of proof operates under Sections 54 and 35 of the NDPS Act once possession is shown.
- Whether Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab helped the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Section 54, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Quoted and applied: the prosecution must first prove by cogent evidence that the contraband was in the accused's conscious possession; only then may the court presume, unless the contrary is proved, that he committed an offence in respect of articles for whose possession he fails to account satisfactorily. As the appellant offered no satisfactory explanation, the presumption was drawn. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 19)
- Section 35, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Explained as requiring the court to presume the culpable mental state, including intention, knowledge and motive, so that the accused must prove he lacked knowledge or intent regarding the drugs. (¶ 20)
- Section 8 read with Section 15, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The conviction and sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 under these provisions, affirmed by the High Court, were upheld. (¶¶ 1, 6, 24, 25)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court examined the appellant's statement under this provision and found no satisfactory explanation for his sitting on one carton with the other two beside him; Avtar Singh, where the accused had not been questioned on possession, was distinguished. (¶¶ 5, 13, 18)
Held
- Before an accused can be convicted under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must establish with cogent evidence that the contraband was in his conscious possession; only then does the onus shift to the accused to account for that possession satisfactorily, failing which the presumption under Section 54 arises. (¶¶ 14, 16)
- Conscious possession requires both physical control of the narcotic substance and awareness of its presence and nature; under Section 35 the court presumes the culpable mental state, and the accused must prove the absence of knowledge or intent. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab did not help the appellant. There, other occupants of the vehicle had escaped and could have been the custodians, and the accused were never questioned under Section 313 CrPC about possession. Its statement that possession requires at least custody or control over the goods in fact went against the appellant. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The appellant, identified on specific information, was found sitting on one of the cartons with the other two next to him and gave no satisfactory explanation in his Section 313 statement. His plea that he carried the cartons off the train only because the officers told him to was rejected; conscious possession was proved and the Section 54 presumption was rightly drawn. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act affirmed; the appellant, who was on bail, directed to surrender within eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence.