Registered Ownership Alone Cannot Prove Section 25 NDPS Offence: Supreme Court Acquits Truck Owner

The appellant's truck overturned on 15 May 2000; according to two witnesses, the driver and cleaner gave their names, named the appellant as owner, and left on the pretext of calling him but never returned (para 2). The police took the bags into custody on suspicion of contraband and drew samples (para 2). The trial court acquitted the driver and cleaner, as the two witnesses turned hostile, but convicted the appellant under Section 25 and sentenced him to 10 years; the High Court upheld this on 14 May 2010 (paras 1-2). He said in his Section 313 statement that he had hired out the truck for carrying sand; the State argued that the owner was vicariously liable (paras 3-4).

The appellant was not arrested at the spot, and the alleged driver and cleaner were identified only through witnesses who turned hostile (para 6). Section 25 punishes an owner who knowingly permits the vehicle to be used for an offence (para 6). There was no material that the truck was used with the appellant's knowledge and consent, and the Section 35 presumption was unavailable because the prosecution had not proved the foundational facts; "In the absence thereof, the onus will not shift on the accused" (para 7). Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab held that knowledge and consent is the sine qua non of Section 25 (para 8). The person before whom the driver and cleaner allegedly implicated the appellant was never examined, and the officer who lodged the FIR said nothing against him (para 10). He was convicted merely as the registered owner, the trial court having put the entire burden of defence on him (para 11). The primary error was shifting the onus to him to prove his innocence without the foundational facts being proved (para 12).