Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harbhajan Singh, was convicted under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) by the Trial Court on 18.05.2005 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the High Court on 14.05.2010. The case arose from an incident on 15.05.2000 when a truck owned by the appellant turned turtle near Hanuman Mandir, Hisar Road, Village Agroha. The police, on suspicion, unloaded bags from the truck which were found to contain contraband. The driver and cleaner, Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh, were acquitted by the Trial Court as key witnesses turned hostile. The appellant was convicted solely on the basis of being the registered owner. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires the prosecution to prove that the owner knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used for an offence. The Court noted that no evidence was led to show that the appellant had knowledge of the contraband or that he permitted its use. The presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act could not be raised as the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts. The appellant's statement under Section 313 CrPC that he had given the truck on hire to one Kashmir Singh for carrying sand was not rebutted. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 25 - Offence by Owner - Mens Rea - Conviction under Section 25 requires proof that the owner knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used for commission of an offence under the Act - Mere ownership is insufficient - Prosecution must establish foundational facts showing knowledge or connivance - In the absence of such evidence, presumption under Section 35 cannot be invoked (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, as owner of the truck, can be convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act without proof that he knowingly permitted the use of his vehicle for commission of an offence under the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
Law Points
- Section 25 NDPS Act requires mens rea
- presumption under Section 35 NDPS Act not automatic
- foundational facts must be proved by prosecution
