( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been brought against judgment dated August 7, 1980, of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he had dismissed an appeal brought against the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate February 12, 1980, by which he convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Opium Act and the subsequent order dated March 4, 1980, sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Re. 1,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six month.

( 2 ) IN a raid carried out at the room in occupation of the petitioner on September 25, 1976, at about 8. 10 A. M. situated in house No. 4010 at Bagichi Ram Chander in presence of the petitioner, in that room a bag was found lying underneath a cot and on opening the bag 9 kgs 650 gms of opium was recovered. A sample of 100 gms was taken and after sealing the sample as well as the remaining opium, the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. Public Witness 2/a. The sample was got sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short icfsl ) and report Ex. Public Witness 7/d was received from the expert of CFSL opining that the sample was of opium and the percentage of morphine was 3. 5. Both the lower courts have given concurrent finding of fact regarding the aforesaid recovery of opium. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not questioned in this criminal revision, rightly so, the factum of recovery of the opium from the said particular room in presence of the petitioner. However, he has vehemently argued: that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the said opium and thus, she could not be convicted for the said offence.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts show that particular room was in occupation of the petitioner, who was living in the said room with her husband and two children. The version of the petitioner that some other relations were also living in that ve room alongwith them has been rightly disbelieved by the two courts below. The site-plan Ex. Public Witness 7/c shows that the room, from which the opium was recovered, was not a very big room. So, the short question which arises for decision in this criminal revision is whether keeping in view the fact that a huge quantity of opium had been recovered from a bag which was quite visible lying under the only cot available in that room in presence of the petitioner, could enable the courts to draw an inference that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the said contraband? The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that possibility of petitioner being ignorant about the contents of the said bag cannot be completely overlooked inasmuch as the said bag could have been put there by petitioner s husband and the petitioner might not have known the contents of the said bag.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to certain case law in support of his contention that in the present case the petitioner could not be deemed to be in conscious possession of the aforesaid opium. He has made reference to Jawar Arjan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1500. In the said case, the facts were that the appellant was a rickshaw driver who had carried another person in his rickshaw and on rickshaw being searched, some balloons kept in a bag containing illicit liquor were found. The passenger as well as ihe appellant were convicted. The Supreme Court held that there is nothing to show that the bag containing the balloons was clearly visible as to lead to the inference therefrom that the bag contained illicit liquor. It was found that the articles were kept in a bag which was closed and the said bag had been put into the dicky of the rickshaw. So, it was held that the appellant, who was merely a rickshaw driver, could not be imputed with the knowledge of the possession of the artic