Case Note & Summary
The Union of India appealed against the acquittal of respondent No.1, Dattu Mukinda Kanchan, by the Special Court under the NDPS Act in NDPS Sessions Case No.2 of 2001. The prosecution case was that on 10.11.2000, based on information and after complying with legal formalities, officers of the appellant along with two panchas raided the premises of respondent No.1. During the search, seven packed jute gunny bags were found containing green coloured leaves, stalks and seeds like substance which emanated a strong smell and was admitted as ganja by respondent No.1. Since the ganja found in the bags was similar in form and nature, two samples of ganja each weighing 25 grams were taken. The trial court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent was in conscious possession of the contraband. The High Court, after reappreciating the evidence, held that the recovery was from premises which were occupied by the respondent along with others, and there was no evidence to show that the respondent had exclusive possession or knowledge of the ganja. The court further noted that the trial court's view was a plausible one and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Possession - Conscious Possession - Section 20(b)(ii) - The prosecution must prove that the accused had conscious possession of the contraband. Recovery from premises occupied by the accused along with others does not automatically establish exclusive possession. The court held that in the absence of evidence that the accused knew about the contraband or had exclusive control over it, the charge under Section 20(b)(ii) fails. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The court held that the trial court's acquittal based on lack of proof of possession was a plausible view and did not warrant interference. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of ganja from the premises of the respondent-accused establishes his conscious possession of the contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondent No.1 upheld.
Law Points
- Possession under NDPS Act must be conscious and exclusive
- Recovery from shared premises does not prove possession
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish possession beyond reasonable doubt
