The main legal point established is the requirement to prove conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt and the procedural compliance under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.R.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Assam.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in connection with Spl. (N.D.P.S) Case No. 08/2019, convicting Sri Debojit Gogoi (herein after referred to as the accused) under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-with default stipulation.

3. The genesis of the case was that on 01.04.2019 at about 8.45 A.M., on the basis of a tip off and on the approval of the Superintendent of Police, (SP for short), Golaghat, Sri Narendra Nath Barik, TSI of Golaghat P.S. (hereinafter the informant) conducted a search of a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AU-8094, a Bolero, at the premises of the rented house of the accused at Jyotinagar and recovered 92 Kgs of suspected ‘cannabis’ from the secret chamber of the Bolero vehicle. The informant seized the recovered cannabis in presence of the witnesses, and at the spot the informant collected 2 (two) samples of 24 gms. each from the bulk, for forwarding the same to the Directorate of Forensic Science (DFS for short) for chemical examination. The informant thereafter, arrested the accused, as per Section 41 of Cr.P.C and forwarded him to the Court. The seizure list was also produced before the Court and thereafter, the samples were forwarded to the DFS.

4. On 18.05.2019, an ejahar was lodged by the informant, which was registered by the O/C of Golaghat P.S. as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 539/2019, under Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act and the O/C embarked upon the investigation. He visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He prepared the sketch-map and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act.

5. During trial, a formal charge was framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and the accused absorbed his guilt and claimed innocence to connect the accused to the crime. The prosecution adduced the evidence of 8 (eight) witnesses and the defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. On the incriminating materials projected against the accused, several questions were asked to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his responses were recorded. The learned trial court delineated the following points to decide the case:-

“Whether the accused on 01.04.2019, at about 8-45 A.M., at Jyoti Nagar, Golaghat, under Golaghat Police Station, District - Golaghat, possessed 92 Kg. of ganja in his Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AU-8094 in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules made thereunder, and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act as alleged ?”

30. Thus, from the evidence of the witnesses, particularly P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is crystal clear that accused was the driver and in possession of the seized Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01-AU-8094, at the relevant time and he parked the said vehicle in front of his house. It is also in the evidence of independent witness Shri Nakul Saikia (P.W.2) that accused handed over the keys of the vehicle to police and police found 92 Kgs of ganja, contained in packets, kept in different chambers under seat, chassis etc. of the said vehicle.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

32. It is true that police could not find the owner of the vehicle, namely Prodip Ali of Tirual, Furkating but the fact remains that it was the accused, who had controlled in possession of the vehicle, in as much as, it was the accused, who handed over the key of the vehicle, to police as per evidence given by the independent witness (