Truck Co-Owner Not Liable Under Section 25 NDPS Without Proof of Knowledge: Supreme Court Acquits

On 22 November 1999 police stopped a truck and found 16 bags of poppy husk, each containing 30 kg (paras 3-4). The appellant, a co-owner of the truck, was charged under Section 15 and, with the driver, under Section 25 (para 4). The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment, and the High Court dismissed their appeal (paras 4-5). The appellant was not at the spot; the case against him was that, while buying the truck, he gave a Rajasthan address though he lived in Haryana, and the High Court drew a presumption against him under Section 35 (para 6). The State's counsel accepted that there was no other evidence (para 8).

Section 25 did not apply because there was no evidence that the appellant had "knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for any improper purpose"; "The sine qua non for the applicability of Section 25 of the Act is thus not made out." (para 9). Setting out Section 35, the Court recalled Noor Aga: because the section imposes a heavy reverse burden, it comes into play only after the prosecution has discharged the initial burden of proving the foundational facts (paras 9-10). Here the burden of proving that the appellant knew his vehicle was being used to transport narcotics still lay on the prosecution, and only evidence proving that knowledge beyond reasonable doubt would raise the presumption (para 10). Section 35 also presupposes that the culpable mental state is proved as a fact beyond reasonable doubt, not on a preponderance of probabilities (para 10). It held that "in the absence of any evidence with regard to the mental state of the appellant no presumption under Section 35 can be drawn" (para 10). The wrong address given while registering the truck could not fasten him with knowledge of its misuse by the driver and others (para 10).