The possession of illicit articles establishes a culpable mental state, and the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act can be raised against the person in possession.

1. Appellant - Avtar Singh has preferred the instant appeal challenging judgment and order dated 07.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (for short 'NDPS Act'), 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years besides to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Briefly stated facts are that Ramesh Kumar, ASI, PW6 was on patrol duty on 18.07.2000 alongwith UGC Chatter Singh, Constable Sewa Singh and Constable Ram Niwas in front of the bus stand, Panipat. A person (appellant) was seen sitting on a plastic gunny bag besides the road where buses going towards Chandigarh and Punjab stopped. There was another gunny bag under the plastic bag on which the said person was sitting. This person seem to become confused at the sight of the police party. On suspicion, ASI Ramesh Kumar alongwith others apprehended him. He revealed his name and address to be Avtar Singh son of Darshan Singh, caste Kashyap Rajpoot, resident of Baistani, Police Station Haryana, District Hoshiarpur. Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served upon him. He was apprised that he was suspected of carrying some narcotic substance in the plastic gunny bag. On being asked, whether he would like to be searched in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the appellant opted for the search to be conducted in the presence of Magistrate. Thereafter, ASI Ramesh Kumar, telephonically called Pankaj Kumar, Tehsildar, PW5, Revenue Department, Panipat and requested him to reach the place of occurrence. Pankaj Kumar, PW5 reached the spot alongwith other staff members on a Government jeep. He was apprised of the facts. Pankaj Kumar, PW5 introduced himself to the accused and on his directions ASI Ramesh Kumar searched the bag on which the appellant was sitting. Stitches of the bag were opened. In one of the bags, 34 kg poppy husk was found and in the other plastic gunny bag 26 kg poppy husk was found. Sample of 250 grams each from both the bags was separated. Separate samples were prepared and the remainder poppy husk was also made into two parcels. All the four parcels were separately sealed with seal RK and taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex. PF, which was duly attested by Pankaj Kumar, Tehsildar, UGC Chatter Singh and Constable Sewa Singh. Seal after use was handed over to UGC Chatter Singh. Ruqa Ex. PD was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was recorded. Intimation to higher officials was sent. Rough site plan Ex. PH was prepared by ASI Ramesh Kumar, PW6. Accused was formerly arrested. Case property, accused and the witnesses were produced before Raghbir Singh, SHO, PW7 for verification. Raghbir Singh, PW7 verified the investigation and affixed his seal RS on all the four parcels and directed PW6, ASI Ramesh Kumar to deposit the case property with MHC. Case property was thereafter deposited with MHC, Naresh Kumar, PW1. Samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban Karnal for examination on 07.08.2000. Samples were identified as poppy straw.

3. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented. Appellant-accused claimed trial. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

4. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. Appellant-accused while denying incriminating material/evidence put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence was led in defence.

5. Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentencing him as detailed above.