Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal UpheldState v. Hazari Lal
2026:RJ-JD:18230
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 643/1997
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 18 April 2026
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 18
Final Outcome
State appeal dismissed; the acquittal of 14.02.1997 was affirmed and the bail bonds discharged (paras 12-13).
Key holdings
- The greater the punishment under the NDPS Act, the stricter the degree of proof required (para 5).
- Possession requires both physical control and knowledge; mere proximity is not enough (para 6).
- Recovery from a house requires proof of the accused's dominion over the premises (paras 8-9).
- An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, so appellate courts should be slow to interfere (para 11).
Brief Facts
On information received, police went to the respondent's house in Chittorgarh district and recovered opium; he was charged under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act (paras 1-2). The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera acquitted him on 14.02.1997, and the State appealed (paras 1-2). As no one appeared for the respondent, the High Court appointed an amicus curiae under the legal aid scheme (para 3). The record showed that he was standing outside the house when the opium was found inside a room (para 4).
Court's Findings
The harsher the punishment under the NDPS Act, the stricter the proof required, and any reasonable doubt goes to the accused (para 5). Possession needs both physical control and knowledge; mere physical proximity to a prohibited substance is not enough (para 6). It must be conscious and exclusive, and where the place is accessible to others or its ownership or control is unproved, exclusivity is diluted (para 7). For recovery from a house, the prosecution must prove the accused's dominion over the premises (para 8). Here nothing showed that the room belonged to him or that he knew of the opium; suspicion cannot take the place of proof (paras 9-10). Relying on Mallappa, the Court said the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, so an appellate court should be slow to interfere (para 11).
Legal Principle
Possession under the NDPS Act must be conscious and exclusive. Where contraband is recovered from premises, the prosecution must prove the accused's ownership, occupation or control of the place; mere proximity to the contraband does not establish possession (paras 6-10).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011 (judgment dated 12.02.2024)
An acquittal by a competent court reinforces the presumption of innocence, so an appellate court should be reluctant to interfere with it.
