Reliable official testimony can sustain NDPS conviction even if independent witnesses turn hostile during trial.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Durg, for the illegal possession of 1.100 kilograms of "Ganja" under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

On September 3, 2016, the Investigating Officer (P.W.-8) received secret information regarding the sale of contraband at the appellant's Pan Thela near Utai Bus Stand.

Following a search and seizure operation, a plastic bag containing the substance was recovered; the appellant failed to produce a valid license or permit.

The trial court sentenced her to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act and the fact that independent witnesses turned hostile.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband.

2. Whether the conviction recorded by the trial court is sustainable in law despite the hostility of independent witnesses.

3. Whether the sentence imposed requires interference or modification based on mitigating circumstances.

The Court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the possession of an intermediate quantity of cannabis.

It relied on the principles established in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, clarifying that substantial or delayed compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act does not vitiate a trial if a satisfactory explanation is provided.

Regarding the search of items rather than persons, the Court applied the doctrine that Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal searches, not to the search of a bag or a stall.

Furthermore, the Court followed State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, which holds that the testimony of official (police) witnesses is reliable and can form the basis of conviction even if independent witnesses turn hostile.

The Court examined the procedural challenges raised by the appellant, specifically the alleged non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

It determined that since the contraband was recovered from a bag kept at a Pan Stall and not from the appellant's person, the mandatory requirements of Section 50 were not attracted.

Regarding Section 42, the Court found that the Investigating Officer had recorded the information and followed due process, noting that any minor procedural deviations were substantially explained.

The Court rejected the argument that the hostility of independent witnesses (P.W.-4 and others) invalidated the case, holding that the consistent and cogent testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-8) was sufficient to prove seizure.

The Court concluded that the prosecution successfully established "conscious possession" as the appellant offered no plausible explanation for the presence of the Ganja at her place of business.

However, regarding the sentence, the Court took a lenient view noting the appellant was a 52-year-old woman of modest means with no criminal antecedents and that the quantity was non-commercial.

The Court partially allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence from one year of rigorous imprisonment to the period of incarceration already undergone (approximately 35 days), while maintaining the fine of ₹1,000.

The appellant was granted a set-off for the custody period under Section 428 of the BNSS Act, 2023.