Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that admittedly, as per face of FIR the alleged recovery of contraband/narcotics i.e. ' Ganja ' was made from open place i.e. farmyard ( Khalihan ) of this petitioner, which is accessible by other family members and general public and as such, it cannot be said that the alleged contraband/narcotics i.e. ' Ganja' was recovered from physical possession of this petitioner. Learned senior counsel while travelling over the argument pointed out paragraph no.9, 10 and 11 of the case diary, where, no specific name of witnesses appears to suggest that the farmyard ( Khalihan ) belongs to this petitioner. It is further submitted that no documentary report was collected from revenue office during the course of investigation, which may suggest that alleged open place i.e. farmyard ( Khalihan ) belongs to this petitioner, in furtherance of suspicion, as raised by the police spy and unknown villagers. It is also pointed out that as the recovery is admittedly not made from conscious physical possession of this petitioner, therefore, the restrictions as available through Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not appears to be applicable in the present case. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that petitioner is man of clean antecedent and moreover, investigation of this case
