Proved conscious possession triggers NDPS statutory presumptions and sustains conviction for intermediate-quantity possession.

The appellant, the first accused, was convicted by the Special Court under the NDPS Act for possessing 10.120 grams of brown sugar, a quantity greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity.

He was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000; the second accused was separately convicted under Section 21(a).

On appeal, the appellant accepted that Sections 42 and 50 had been complied with, but challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and sought leniency in sentence.

1. Whether the evidence justified finding that the appellant committed an offence under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act

2. Whether the impugned conviction and sentence required appellate interference

Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for contraventions involving a quantity greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity.

Under Sections 35 and 54, the court may presume culpable mental state and an offence from possession of illicit articles once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts; the accused may rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities.

Relying on Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, the Court stated that the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused’s burden under the reverse-burden provisions is on a preponderance of probabilities.

The Court also considered compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act.

The Court accepted the consistent evidence of PW1 and PW8 concerning the recovery of the contraband from the appellant, noting that their evidence was not shaken in cross-examination.

It also relied on PW7’s evidence that the search and recovery took place in his presence, and found that the statutory requirements under Sections 42, 50 and 57 had been complied with.

The chemical analysis report identified the substance as brown sugar, and the Court found no scope for tampering with the material produced for analysis.

As the prosecution had established possession of 10.120 grams—an intermediate quantity—and the appellant had not rebutted the statutory presumptions, the Court upheld the finding under Section 21(b).

It considered the two-year term and ₹50,000 fine reasonable.

The order suspending the sentence and granting bail was vacated; the appellant was directed to appear before the Special Court to undergo the sentence, failing which that court was directed to execute it.