Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohammed Aslam, was convicted by the Special Judge, Goa, in Special Criminal Case No. 35/2001 for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) for possession of 1.84 kg of charas. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with default simple imprisonment for one year. The prosecution's case was that based on reliable information, the police raided Room No. F-7 of Hotel Suhas, Mapusa, and recovered 40 grams of charas from the appellant's person and 1.8 kg from a bag in the room. The appellant's defence was that the room was occupied by one Kadir Hussein, who had left before the raid, and the bag belonged to him. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence of nine prosecution witnesses. In appeal, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove conscious exclusive possession and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 57 were not complied with. The High Court held that the prosecution had established possession, and the presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the NDPS Act shifted the burden to the appellant to rebut it. The appellant failed to prove that the bag belonged to Kadir Hussein, as he did not examine him or provide any evidence. The court also found that the compliance with Sections 42 and 57 was proved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Conscious Possession - Sections 54, 35 - Presumption of possession - The court held that once possession is established, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of conscious possession. The appellant failed to prove that the bag containing charas belonged to another person. (Paras 5-6) B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Compliance with Section 42 - Information reduced to writing - The prosecution proved that the information was reduced in writing and sent to the superior officer before the raid, satisfying Section 42. (Para 2) C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Compliance with Section 57 - Report of seizure - The prosecution complied with Section 57 by making a report of the seizure to the superior officer. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved conscious exclusive possession of the contraband by the appellant and whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were complied with.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Law Points
- Conscious possession
- Presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of NDPS Act
- Burden of proof on accused
- Compliance with Section 42 and 57 of NDPS Act
