The Rajasthan High Court, while upholding the trial court's decision to acquit an accused in an NDPS case, emphasized that the prosecution must establish the accused's conscious knowledge of the vehicle being used for storage, concealment, or transportation of contraband to attract liability under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that the term 'knowingly' used in Section 25 is of paramount importance and that the essential ingredient of knowledge cannot be assumed merely on the basis of ownership of the property or vehicle.
The Court stated that 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 a charge-sheet against the owner on the ground of mere registration of the vehicle is legally unsustainable.
It further clarified that knowledge or conscious permission forms the sine qua non for the invocation of Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
The Court observed that the police could not blindly rely on Section 35 of the NDPS Act to implicate the owner of the vehicle for an offence under Section 25 based on statutory presumption. It held that the prosecution is obligated to put forth cogent material to discharge the preliminary burden to invoke the statutory presumption, which cannot operate in a vacuum.
While acknowledging that the provisions of the NDPS Act deserve strict construction and rigorous enforcement, the Court cautioned that such strictness cannot be carried to an extent that undermines the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Section 35 of the NDPS Act provides for the presumption of guilty intent, knowledge, or motive of the accused after the basic facts of the case are proved.
In the present case, the accused-respondent was implicated based on the recovery of 348 kg of contraband from a Scorpio car that was purchased by and registered in his name. The trial court had acquitted the respondent, a decision challenged by the State before the High Court.
The State submitted that there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish that the vehicle used for transporting the contraband was purchased by the respondent and registered in his name.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that the respondent-accused had been implicated primarily on the ground that the vehicle in question was purchased by him from one Sunil. It noted from the record that the prosecution had failed to establish that the co-accused persons were transporting the recovered contraband in the vehicle in question.
The Court held that once the prosecution itself had failed to prove the foundational fact regarding the involvement of the co-accused in the alleged transportation of the contraband, the respondent-accused could not be held liable merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the vehicle.
The Court made 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 conveyance is used to commit an offence, the person who owns the same is not chargeable under the provision simply by virtue of being its owner.
The Court opined that the prosecution bears the responsibility to prove, at least prima facie, that the owner knew about his vehicle being used for the commission of the offence under the NDPS Act.
It noted that the NDPS Act was enacted to combat the societal menace of narcotics while ensuring that constitutional guarantees of personal liberty are not sacrificed due to stringent enforcement.
The Court observed that 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 to ensure that the presumption under Section 35 is not invoked without the prosecution discharging its initial burden of proof.
The High Court, therefore, upheld the trial court's order of acquittal, reiterating that mere ownership or registration of a vehicle used in contraband transportation is insufficient to attract criminal liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act without proof of the accused's knowledge or conscious permission.