Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.54 – Scope of – Presumption of possession of illicit articles:
Held: As per s.54, unless and until the contrary is proved in trial, it may be presumed that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him and for the possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily – Burden is on prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused, and when that is proved, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily – Appellant was found to be in conscious possession of poppy husk, and the defence put forward by him that he had no idea about the three cartons and that he got down from the coach along with the three cartons only on the directions of the officers to do so is not palatable – Appellant failed to explain how come he was sitting on one of the cartons and the other two cartons were closely placed next to him, and thus, s.54 was attracted – Court would be justified in drawing the presumption that the accused was in conscious possession – High Court committed no error in dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. [Paras 15-19, 24].
Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.35 – Presumption of culpable mental state:
Held: Possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious – Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature – Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature, thereby requiring both physical control and mental awareness – s.35 states that in any prosecution under the NDPS Act, the court shall presume that the accused had the requisite mental state, including intention, knowledge, and motive, unless the accused can prove otherwise – Thus, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate that they lacked knowledge or intent regarding the possession of the drugs. [Paras 20 and 21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Nidhi Jain, Editor). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.