Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Atul Dong, Adv. Mr. Aniket Patel, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G. Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania Aor, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR

Key Points: - The court discusses presumption from possession under NDPS Act and burden of proof shifting to the accused once the contraband is shown to be in possession (Paras 14-16) (!) - It explains Section 54 presumption from possession of illicit articles and its application to require conscious possession proven by prosecution (Paras 15-19) (!) (!) (!) - It addresses conscious possession as requiring both physical possession and knowledge/intent regarding illicit nature (Paras 21-22) (!) - The Court cites Avtar Singh for requirements of possession and the need for proper examination under Section 313 CrPC (Paras 12-13) (!) - The Supreme Court upheld conviction, finding appellant in conscious possession of three cartons containing poppy husk and rejected defense of mere presence at platform (Paras 17-19) (!) (!) - The verdict references that the High Court’s dismissal of appeal was correct and that the appellant’s appeal is dismissed (Paras 24-26) (!) (!) - The facts establish that a FIR/charge was for section 8/15 NDPS Act; trial and HC upheld conviction (Paras 6-7, 10-11) (!) (!) (!)

What is the presumption from possession of illicit articles under NDPS Act and how does it affect the burden of proof in trials?

What is the meaning and application of conscious possession under the NDPS Act, and how does it interact with Section 54 and Section 35 presumptions?

What was the Court's ruling regarding whether the appellant was in conscious possession of the poppy husk and the sufficiency of evidence to convict under Section 8 read with Section 15 NDPS Act?