Joint possession of commercial quantity negated absent proof of common intent or connection between accused.

On February 13, 2022, police intercepted three individuals at New Bongaigaon Railway Station arriving on the Deogarh Express

Suraj Kumar Roy was found with a blue trolley bag containing 10.21 kg of Ganja, while Bipin Kumar and Vira Mahato were found together with a plastic sack containing 10.8 kg of Ganja

The prosecution alleged a total seizure of 21.1 kg (commercial quantity).

The appellants argued they were in separate coaches (B-1 and S-2), did not know each other, and that the police failed to comply with procedural mandates regarding search, seizure, and safe custody under Sections 41, 52A, and 55 of the NDPS Act

The Trial Court convicted all three under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act

The court applied Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, distinguishing between "intermediate" (Clause B) and "commercial" (Clause C) quantities

It relied on Section 35 regarding the presumption of a culpable mental state once foundational facts of possession are proven

Procedurally, the court applied Section 41(2) regarding authorization for search

Section 55 regarding custody of seized goods

It followed Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, establishing that Sections 52, 55, and 57 are directory, not mandatory

Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, which holds that absence of independent witnesses or minor procedural irregularities under Section 52-A are not fatal unless they affect the integrity of the substance

The High Court found that while the prosecution proved "conscious possession" of the contraband via the testimony of PW-4 and FSL reports, it failed to prove "common intention" or joint ownership among all three appellants

The court noted that Suraj Kumar Roy held a seat in Coach B-1, while the other two were in Coach S-2; their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also indicated they were strangers

Consequently, the seizures were treated as two distinct incidents: 10.21 kg and 10.8 kg

Regarding procedural lapses, the court held that PW-4 was duly authorized under Section 41(2) and the short two-minute train stoppage justified conducting the search on the platform rather than inside the coach

Since each seizure fell below the 20 kg threshold for "commercial quantity" for Ganja, the conviction necessitated a downward revision from Clause (C) to Clause (B)

It answered the second issue in the negative, holding procedural directory provisions were sufficiently met

The court modified the conviction from Section 20(b)(ii)(C) (commercial quantity) to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (intermediate quantity)

The sentence of 15 years was reduced to 3½ years of rigorous imprisonment for each appellant, maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The appeals were disposed of with these modifications