Proof of exclusive and conscious possession is mandatory to establish culpability under the NDPS Act.

The State of Rajasthan appealed against the judgment dated 14.02.1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that police recovered opium from a room inside the respondent's house following an information-based raid.

Evidence (Exhibit P-2 and testimony of PW-1 & PW-5) indicated the respondent was standing outside the house at the time of recovery.

The trial court acquitted the accused due to failure in proving exclusive possession.

1. Whether the prosecution established "conscious and exclusive possession" of the contraband by the accused respondent.

2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal given the double presumption of innocence.

The court applied the stringent standards of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically the principle that a higher penalty necessitates a stricter degree of proof.

The jurisprudential definition of "possession," requiring the concurrence of corpus (physical control) and animus (mental element/knowledge).

For recovery from a dwelling, the prosecution must prove "conscious and exclusive possession," establishing the accused’s dominion over the premises.

The scope of appellate interference in judgments of acquittal where the presumption of innocence is doubled as per Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2024).

The Court observed that while the recovery was supposedly made from the accused's house, the prosecution provided no credible evidence to establish that the accused owned, occupied, or had exclusive control over the specific room where the opium was found.

Since the respondent was found standing outside the house during the raid, the prosecution failed to prove physical control (corpus) or the requisite mental awareness (animus).

The Court reasoned that mere suspicion cannot replace legal proof, and the absence of foundational facts regarding ownership or control meant the mandatory ingredients of Section 8/18 were not met.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal dated 14.02.1997. The bail bonds were discharged, and the trial court's record was ordered to be returned.