2003 (8) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT

Whether there was any non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act as pleaded?

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the factual scenario of the present case not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused-appellants that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act.

In fact the evidence clearly establishes that they knew about transportation of charas, and each had a role in the transportation and possession with conscious knowledge of what they are doing. The accused-appellant Manjit Singh does not stand on a different footing merely because he was a driver of the vehicle. The logic applicable to other accused-appellants also applies to Manjit Singh. he presumption available by application of logic flowing from Sections 35 and 54 of the Act clearly applies to the facts of the present case