Section 43 of the NDPS Act applies when highway interception precedes seizure at a police station.

On 19 January 2023, during naka checking on NH-31, two vehicles were intercepted after one collided with a police vehicle. Police later opened both vehicles at the police station and recovered 66.899 kg of suspected cannabis in 177 packets. The appellant was among the persons apprehended.

After trial, the Special Judge convicted him under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000; he was acquitted of the other charged offences. On appeal, he challenged, among other matters, proof connecting him to the contraband and compliance with Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was in possession of the recovered cannabis so as to sustain his conviction under the NDPS Act

2. Whether the interception and subsequent seizure complied with the applicable requirements of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act

3. Whether the conviction and sentence warranted appellate interference

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for cannabis offences involving a commercial quantity; Section 43 applies to seizure and arrest in a public place, while Section 42 governs specified searches in buildings, conveyances or enclosed places.

Under Section 54, once the prosecution establishes the relevant foundational facts concerning possession, the statutory presumption may arise, with the accused bearing the burden of rebuttal.

The Court relied on *S.K. Raju @ Abdul Hoque @ Jagga v. State of West Bengal*, (2018) 9 SCC 708, for the application of Section 43 to public-place seizures

and *Noor Aga v. State of Punjab*, (2008) 16 SCC 417, concerning the burden arising under the NDPS Act’s statutory presumptions.

The Court accepted the evidence of the informant and seizure witnesses, together with the FSL evidence identifying the samples as cannabis, as establishing recovery of the contraband. It treated the discrepancies in the witnesses’ accounts as immaterial and concluded that the evidence established the appellant’s connection to the contraband.

Because the vehicles were intercepted on a public highway during naka checking, the Court held that Section 43 applied; it also observed that the informant had reported the matter to superior authorities and obtained authorization.

The Court found that the Section 54 presumption arose and that the appellant’s bare denial under Section 313 CrPC did not rebut it.

It found no basis to interfere with the ten-year rigorous-imprisonment term or the ₹1,00,000 fine.