Control over contraband, not vehicle ownership, establishes possession under the NDPS Act.

On 2 May 2016, a police patrol apprehended the appellants near a motorcycle and allegedly recovered approximately 2 kg of opium in a cloth bag.

The police registered a case under Sections 8, 17(b) and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”); the trial court framed charges under Sections 17(b) and 18

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted both appellants under Section 17(b) and sentenced each to eight years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000

On appeal, the appellants challenged the recovery and seizure evidence, including the absence of independent witnesses and irregularities in the handling and production of the seized substance; alternatively, they sought a reduction in sentence

Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the appellants’ possession of the recovered opium despite the challenges to the seizure, the absence of independent witnesses, and the alleged evidentiary and custody discrepancies.

Whether the eight-year sentence should be reduced in light of the appellants’ circumstances and the asserted absence of aggravating factors.

The Court applied Section 17(b) of the NDPS Act, under which the relevant punishment applies to a contravention involving a quantity greater than the small quantity but less than the commercial quantity; it treated the recovered 2 kg as an intermediate quantity.

It also referred to Section 32-B in considering sentence, although paragraph 21 describes the provision as “Section 30-B”; the judgment identifies no precedent or further statutory test governing that reference.

The Court found the police witnesses consistent that the appellants were present at or near the place of occurrence and that the opium was in a bag associated with them; it considered the distinction between their being on or away from the motorcycle immaterial to possession.

It held that the absence of public witnesses did not displace the prosecution case, noting the patrol circumstances and the location, and relied on the FSL report to find that the seized material was opium.

The Court also considered the appellants’ control over the bag and motorcycle sufficient for its possession finding, without requiring proof of motorcycle ownership.

For sentence, it noted the appellants’ youth and the absence of aggravating circumstances on the record, and reduced the term of imprisonment.

The fine of ₹50,000 each was maintained, as was the one-year default sentence.

As Raj Kumar Sao was in custody, while Nagina @ Nakul Yadav was on bail, the latter’s bail bond was cancelled and the trial court was directed to take steps to secure his custody for the balance of the sentence.