NDPS Act | Police Can't 'Blindly' Use Statutory Presumption To Prosecute Vehicle Owner Without Proof Of 'Knowledge': Rajasthan High Court
While upholding trial court's decision that acquitted an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court observed that unless it was established by the prosecution that the accused had conscious knowledge of his house/premises/vehicle/property being used for storage, concealment or transportation of contraband, offence under Section 25 was not made out. The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that...
While upholding trial court's decision that acquitted an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court observed that unless it was established by the prosecution that the accused had conscious knowledge of his house/premises/vehicle/property being used for storage, concealment or transportation of contraband, offence under Section 25 was not made out.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that the phrase “knowingly” used under Section 25, NDPS Act, was of paramount importance and the essential ingredient of knowledge could not be assumed merely based on the ownership of the property.
“Ownership of the vehicle without any material linking the petitioner to the transportation and possession of the contraband goods cannot make him criminally liable and filing of charge-sheet against the owner on the ground of mere registration of the vehicle is, therefore, legally unsustainable. Knowledge or conscious permission forms the sine-qua-non for invocation of Section 25 of NDPS Act.”
The Court observed that police could not blindly rely on Section 35, NDPS Act, to rope in the owner of the vehicle for offence under Section 25, based on statutory presumption. Prosecution was obligated to put forth cogent material to discharge preliminary burden to invoke statutory presumption which could not operate in vacuum.
“While the provisions of the NDPS Act undoubtedly deserve strict construction and rigorous enforcement, such strictness cannot be carried to an extent that undermines the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence…”
Section 35, NDPS Act provides for presumption of the guilty intent/knowledge/motive of the accused, after the basic facts of the case were proved.
For context, the accused-respondent was implicated in an NDPS case based on the fact that 348 Kgs of contraband was recovered from a Scorpio car which was found to be purchased by and registered in the name of the respondent. The trial court acquitted the respondent and this decision was appealed before the Court by the State.
The state submitted that there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish that the vehicle used for transportation of the contraband was purchased by the respondent from a person and it was registered in his name.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed,
“…respondent-accused has been implicated in the present case primarily on the ground that the vehicle in question was purchased by him from one Sunil…It is evident from the record, that the prosecution has failed to establish that the co accused persons were transporting the recovered contraband in the vehicle in question and once the prosecution itself has failed to prove the foundational fact regarding the involvement of the co accused in the alleged transportation of the contraband, the respondent-accused cannot be held liable merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the vehicle.”
The Court made a reference to Section 25 of the Act, and highlighted the phrase “knowingly permits it to be used for”. It held that if a house, room, enclosure or a conveyance was used to commit an offence, the person who owns the same, was not chargeable under the provision simply by the virtue of being its owner.
It was opined that the prosecution had the responsibility to prove, at least prima facie, that the owner knew about his vehicle being used for commission of the offence under the NDPS Act.
The Court opined that NDPS Act was enacted to combat societal menace of narcotics, while ensuring that constitutional guarantees of personal liberty were not sacrificed due to stringent enforcement.
“The legislative scheme of the Act seeks to maintain a delicate balance between the individual's right to liberty and the compelling public interest in preventing and curbing drug-related offences. Given that the Act prescribes severe punishments and imposes stringent conditions even for the grant of bail, it becomes all the more imperative for the prosecution to strictly discharge its burden of establishing the requisite mental element or culpable knowledge wherever the statute so requires.”
In this background, the Court highlighted that in the present case, there was nothing to prove that the petitioner had any knowledge of his vehicle being used by the co-accused for transportation of the contraband. Hence, no illegality was found with the trial court's order.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Gopal Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 359