JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 27.3.2006 passed by Special Judge (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (for short 'the Act'), Sagar in Special Case No. 06/05 whereby the Appellant was convicted under Sections 8 read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 years. 2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated thus- (i) Janki Bai (P.W. 10), widow of Shobaram Patel and resideni of Neha Nagar, Makronia, Sagar, owned lands bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 872, 884/2, 875, 882, 812, 883/2, 222, 861, 862, 866/2 and 868 located in Village Mauja Pipariya Karkat. After death of Shobaram, she kept the Appellant as her husband but their relatioaship did not survive for long. Ultimately, they started living separately. During subsistence of their relationship, the Appellant sold five acres of land to Komal Patel whereas after their separation, Janki Bai transferred the lands bearing Survey Nos. 222, 861, 862, 866 2, 868, 872 and 812 in favour of Deepak Choubey and his wife Shubra Choubey and the lands bearing Survey Nos. 875, 882 and 883/2 to Purushottam Choubey (P.W. 7). However, while residing in a Taparia (temporary hutment) situated in land bearing Survey No. 875, the Appellant continued to cultivate the same. (ii) Upon an application made by Purushottam, the Tahsildar directed Revenue Inspector to demarcate boundaries of land purchased by him. At the request of the Revenue Inspector, police force led by ASI J.P. Namdeo was also deployed for maintaining law and order during the demarcation proceedings proposed to be conducted on 10.06.2005. (iii) On that day at about 6 p.m., noticing that a smell of Ganja was emanating from a Palang Peti (cot cum box) [hereinafter referred to as 'box' only], ASI J.P. Namdeo informed S.K. Mishra (P.W. 2), the then SHO of P.S. Beheriya. He along with other members of the police force including Constable Jagdish (P.W. 1) reached the spot. Upon Appellant's refusal to provide the key he broke open the lock of the box in presence of panch witnesses Gulab Singh (P.W. 8) and Mukesh Jain (P.W. 12). The box is found to contain a total quantity of 162 Kgs. of Ganja stored in as many as 31 polythene packets. Upon Appellant's refusal to provide the key he broke open the lock of the box in presence of panch witnesses Gulab Singh (P.W. 8) and Mukesh Jain (P.W. 12). The box is found to contain a total quantity of 162 Kgs. of Ganja stored in as many as 31 polythene packets. The information relating to recovery of a huge quantity of the Ganja was communicated to DSP H.S. Dadoriya (P.W. 3), who also arrived at the spot and duly seized the contraband. Two samples of 200 gms each were taken out. One of the samples was forwarded to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. The corresponding report (Ex.P-25) indicated that the sample contained Ganja. 3. The Appellant denied the charge and pleaded false implication at the instance of Janki Bai due to prevailing animosity arising from breakdown of their manital relationship. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it was suggested that several other persons were also residing in the taparia whereas in the examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), he further asserted that the seized contraband belonged to Janki Bai only. Co-villager Ramesh Kumar was also examined to substant ate the defence that only Janki Bai (P.W. 10) was involved in illicit trade of Ganja. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution produced as many as 12 witnesses including Patwari Rajkumar (P.W. 9). Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the judgment proceeded to reject the defence and convicted and sentenced the Appellant as indicated hereinabove. 5. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been challenged primarily on the ground that there was no evidence to establish exclusive possession of the Appellant over the taparia where from the contraband was said to been recovered. For this, attention has been invited to the statements of panch witness Gulab Singh (P.W. 8) and Mukesh (P.W. 12) that the other persons were also residing in the taparia. Reliance has also been placed on the following precedents- (i) Man Bahadur v. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 369 (ii) Laxminarayan v. State of M.P. ILR 2009 M.P. 2652 (iii) Aasif Malik v. State of M.P ILR 2009 M.P. 3012 6. However, no serious dispute was raised as to factum of recovery of the contraband from the box kept in the taparia. However, no serious dispute was raised as to factum of recovery of the contraband from the box kept in the taparia. Even otherwise, the corresponding evidence of SHO S.K. Mishra (P.W. 2), DSP H.S. Dadoriya (P.W. 3), Constable Jagdish, panch witness Gulab Singh (P.W. 8) and Purushottam (P.W. 7) at whose instance the demarcation proceedings was initiated also did not suffer from any serious infirmity. It may be noted that another panch witness Mukesh (P.W. 12), who was declared hostile by the prosecution, clearly admitted that smell of Ganja was coming out from the taparia. However, as per his statement, the taparia, initially owned by Janki Bai, was purchased by the Appellant. 7. Thus, the controversy lies in a very narrow compass. The question which requires consideration is as to whether the Appellant was found in a conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband? 8. Rajkumar (P.W. 9), the Patwari, is the key witness. According to him, he had gone to the spot under the orders of Naib Tahsildar to make measurements for the purpose of demarcation and make necessary entries in the field book. In the map (Ex.P-18) and the report (Ex.P-19) forwarded to the SHO along with copies of corresponding Khasra entries (Ex.P-20 and P-21), it was clearly indicated by him that taparia, though located in the land belonging to Janki, was occupied as residence by the Appellant only. Purshottam (P.W. 7), Gulab Singh (P.W. 8), Janki Bai (P.W. 10) and Mukesh (P.W. 12) corroborated the fact that the Ganja was seized in the course of measurement proceedings conducted by the Revenue Inspector with the help of Patwari. 9. In the instant case, Deputy Superintendent of Police H.S. Dadoriya (P.W. 3) was immediately informed about recovery of the contraband. As established from the evidence of constable Suresh (P.W. 5), copy of the FIR leading to registration of the case was also forwarded to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Thus, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act and Section 157 of the Code. The seized packets of contraband as well as the box were also produced before the Court and were duly identified by DSP as articles of evidence. Thus, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act and Section 157 of the Code. The seized packets of contraband as well as the box were also produced before the Court and were duly identified by DSP as articles of evidence. As such, the decision in Laxminarayan's case (supra), which is based on non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act and non-production of the contraband before the Court, is not applicable to the facts of the case. 10. In Aasif Malik's case (above), the finding of not guilty was recorded while holding that the room wherefrom the Ganja was recovered was not in exclusive possession of the accused and the house also belonged to the co-accused Ashfaq Malik whereas in the present case, there was absolutely no cogent evidence to suggest that the possession of Taparia was shared by the other persons. In this regard, the admission made by panch witnesses namely Gulab and Mukesh did not assume any significance as no explanation was furnished regarding non-disclosure of the names of other occupants despite the fact that the Appellant was none other the Patel of the village. 11. Decision rendered in Man Bahadur's case (ibid) which is based on noncompliance of Section 50 of the Act, is also of no avail to the Appellant as the Ganja was allegedly recovered from a box and not from the person of the Appellant that too during proceedings relating to demarcation of lands (State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar AIR 2005 SC 2265 referred to). In this case, while explaining the malefic drug abuse, the Apex Court has struck a note of caution that drug traffickers should not go scot-free on technical pleas. 12. The contention that an exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband was not attributable to the Appellant, also does not deserve acceptance in view of the fact that he did not discharge the onus of proof to rebut the presumption envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. For further elucidation, the following observations made by the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of H.P AIR 2003 SC 3642 may be quoted- The word 'possession' means the legal right to possession (See Heath v. Drown (1912) (2) All ER 561 (HL). For further elucidation, the following observations made by the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of H.P AIR 2003 SC 3642 may be quoted- The word 'possession' means the legal right to possession (See Heath v. Drown (1912) (2) All ER 561 (HL). In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his fire-arm in his mother's flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. (See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness (1976 (1) All ER 844 (QBD). 13. Accordingly, 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 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. Decision in Madan Lal's case (supra) has been consistently followed in all subsequent decisions on the point including the one rendered in Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (2009) 15 SCC 795 . 15. In the face of overwhelming incriminating evidence on record and a well-settled position of law on the point of conscious possession, learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in convicting the Appellant for the offence charged with. Accordingly, the conviction in question deserves to be maintained. Since the minimum prescribed custodial and fine sentences have been awarded to the Appellant, no interference would be called for. 16. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned conviction and the corresponding sentences are hereby maintained.