Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant, was neither the owner, nor the driver of the truck, wherefrom, the alleged recovery was effected. She further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could not be said, that the appellant, was in conscious possession of the poppy heads. She further submitted that, thus, the appellant, did not commit any offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The appellant, was found sitting, at the steering wheel of the truck, whereas, Surta Singh, accused (since acquitted), was found sitting, in the main body of the truck, who jumped out and ran away. On search of the truck, 40 bags, each containing 37 kgs poppy heads, were recovered. The appellant, being the driver of the truck, at the relevant time, and sitting, at the steering wheel thereof, had special means of knowledge, as to wherefrom, such a big haul of poppy heads, was loaded, in the truck; from whom, the same, was purchased; where the same, was being taken; and for what purpose, the same, was being taken. He could not plead ignorance, when the contraband, was recovered from the vehicle of which he was the driver that he was not aware of the same. No explanation, was furnished, by the appellant, on the aforesaid aspects of the case. The possession of the appellant, in respect of the bags, containing poppy heads and his control over the same, therefore, stood duly proved. Once his possession, was proved, statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, operated against him, that he was in conscious possession thereof. It was for him, to rebut the statutory presumption, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He, however, failed to lead any evidence, to rebut the statutory presumption. As such, he was in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 54 of the Act ibid reads as under :-

In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:-

The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.

Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles."

14. The facts of Madan Lal's case (supra) in brief, were that accused Manjit Singh was driving the Car and the remaining four accused, were sitting therein. One steel container (dolu) in a black coloured bag, was recovered from the said Car, which contained 820 gms. charas. All the accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, holding that they were found in conscious possession of charas, despite the fact, that one of the accused admitted his conscious possession, of the contraband. The Apex Court held that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain as to how they were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 319, on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting, on the gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested, while the other two fled. 25 bags containing poppy husk, were found, at the spot, which were seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, and the appeal filed by him, was also dismissed by the High Court. The Apex Court, upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, observing that he was in conscious possession. The word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular fact. It is the state of mind, which is deliberate or intended. It was further held that possession, in a given case, need not be physical possession, but can be constructive, having power and control over the article, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. The facts of Madan Lal's case (supra) are almost similar and identical to the facts of the present case. The principle of law, laid down, in Madan Lal's case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellant, took up the plea of false implication. As stated above, the accused miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above. Thus, his conscious possession, in respect of the contraband, was proved, and, as such, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

15. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused, was not put any question, that he was found, in conscious possession of the poppy heads, allegedly recovered, from the body of the truck, and, as such, he could not be convicted, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It may be stated here that, in statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the incriminating circumstances, appearing against the accused, in the prosecution evidence, are required, to be put. He is not required to be put either the provisions of law or the presumption, operating under the provisions of law, in his statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was put the question, that he was the driver of the truck, and, thus, was found in possession of 40 bags, each containing 37 kgs poppy heads. He was only required to be put questions, with regard to the possession of the contraband. Once his possession, in relation to the contraband, was proved, then statutory presumption, under Section 35 and 54 of the Act, operated against him, that he was in conscious possession of the contraband. Charge was framed, against the accused, wherein, it was put, that he was found in possession of poppy heads. He was granted full opportunity, to cross-examine the witnesses. His statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence. So full opportunity, was given, to him, to defend himself, and, to disprove the factum, that he was in conscious possession of the poppy heads. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.