Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P . (Crl.) No.10543 of 2010)
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a truck owner be held liable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) if their vehicle is used for drug trafficking without their knowledge? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana. The court overturned the conviction of the truck owner, emphasizing that mere ownership isn’t enough to establish guilt under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The bench consisted of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident on May 15, 2000, when a truck owned by Harbhajan Singh overturned near Hanuman Mandir, Hisar Road, Village Agroha. The accident occurred around 9:00 PM. The police registered a First Information Report (FIR) the next day, May 16, 2000, at 4:25 PM, based on information from a patrol party. According to witnesses Ram Sarup and Naresh Kumar, the truck’s driver and cleaner, identified as Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh, respectively, left the scene after informing them that they would call the owner, Harbhajan Singh, but never returned. Suspecting the truck was carrying contraband, the police seized the bags, which were later found to contain a narcotic substance.

Timeline:

Date Event
May 15, 2000, 9:00 PM Truck overturns near Hanuman Mandir, Hisar Road, Village Agroha.
May 16, 2000, 4:25 PM FIR No. 68 registered based on information from police patrol party.
May 19, 2000 Balwan Singh s/o Chatar Singh claimed that Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh confessed to carrying contraband on the instructions of Harbhajan Singh.
May 18, 2005 Trial Court convicts Harbhajan Singh under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
May 14, 2010 High Court upholds the conviction and sentence of Harbhajan Singh.
April 25, 2023 Supreme Court overturns the conviction of Harbhajan Singh.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Harbhajan Singh under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 10 years imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction. The Trial Court acquitted Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh after two witnesses who had identified them to the police turned hostile. The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which states:

“Section 25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.—Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, place or enclosure, knowingly allows it to be used for the commission, by any other person, of an offence punishable under this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.”

Additionally, Section 35 of the NDPS Act deals with the presumption of culpable mental state:

“35. Presumption of culpable mental state.—(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation.—In this section ‘culpable mental state’ includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.”

See also  Supreme Court Mandates CCI Approval Before CoC Nod for Combination Resolution Plans: Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors. (2025) INSC 124 (29 January 2025)

The Supreme Court examined how these provisions apply to the owner of a vehicle used in drug trafficking.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

  • The appellant argued that Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proof that the owner knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for an offense.
  • The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had any knowledge of the illegal activity.
  • The presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked because the prosecution did not prove the foundational facts.
  • The appellant stated that he had hired the truck to one Kashmir Singh for carrying sand.
  • The driver and cleaner of the truck were acquitted, and no appeal was filed against their acquittal.

State’s Arguments:

  • The State argued that the appellant failed to prove the truck was not used for illegal activities.
  • The owner of the truck is vicariously liable.
  • Though the appellant claimed that the truck was given for carrying sand, he did not produce any evidence to prove this claim.
  • The presumption of guilt should apply against the appellant.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions Party
Knowledge of Illegal Activity Section 25 requires proof of knowingly permitting the use of the vehicle for an offense. Appellant
Prosecution failed to establish the owner had knowledge of the illegal activity. Appellant
The owner failed to prove the truck was not used for illegal activities. State
Presumption of Guilt Presumption under Section 35 cannot be invoked as the prosecution did not prove foundational facts. Appellant
The presumption of guilt should apply against the owner. State
Vicarious Liability The owner of the truck is vicariously liable for the actions of the driver and cleaner. State
Hiring of Truck The owner claimed he had hired the truck to one Kashmir Singh for carrying sand. Appellant
The owner did not produce any evidence to prove this claim. State

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

  1. Whether the owner of a vehicle can be convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act if the vehicle is used for drug trafficking without the owner’s knowledge and consent?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the owner of a vehicle can be convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act if the vehicle is used for drug trafficking without the owner’s knowledge and consent? No The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the owner knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for drug trafficking. The court emphasized that mere ownership is not sufficient for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases:

  • Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr., Customs and Central Excise [(2005) 4 SCC 146]: The Supreme Court referred to this case while considering the arguments of the appellant.
  • State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam [(2010) 15 SCC 369]: The Supreme Court referred to this case while considering the arguments of the appellant.
  • Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653]: The Supreme Court relied on this case, stating that conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proof that the vehicle was used with the knowledge and consent of the owner.
  • Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 9 SCC 202]: The Supreme Court referred to this case while considering the arguments of the appellant.
  • Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417]: The Supreme Court referred to this case while dealing with the question of possession in terms of Section 54 of the NDPS Act and the presumption raised under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Child Murder Case: Vahitha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (22 February 2023)
Authority Court How the Authority was Considered
Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr., Customs and Central Excise [(2005) 4 SCC 146] Supreme Court of India Referred to while considering the arguments of the appellant.
State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam [(2010) 15 SCC 369] Supreme Court of India Referred to while considering the arguments of the appellant.
Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653] Supreme Court of India Relied upon to emphasize that conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proof that the vehicle was used with the knowledge and consent of the owner.
Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 9 SCC 202] Supreme Court of India Referred to while considering the arguments of the appellant.
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417] Supreme Court of India Referred to while dealing with the question of possession in terms of Section 54 of the NDPS Act and the presumption raised under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.

The court also considered the following legal provisions:

  • Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: This section deals with the punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for the commission of an offense.
  • Section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: This section deals with the presumption of culpable mental state.

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
The appellant argued that Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proof that the owner knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for an offense. The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the owner’s knowledge.
The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had any knowledge of the illegal activity. The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the owner’s knowledge.
The presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked because the prosecution did not prove the foundational facts. The Court agreed with the appellant, stating that the prosecution had failed to discharge its initial burden of proving the foundational facts.
The appellant stated that he had hired the truck to one Kashmir Singh for carrying sand. The Court noted this statement but did not rely on it as a reason for its decision.
The State argued that the appellant failed to prove the truck was not used for illegal activities. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, not the accused.
The State argued that the owner of the truck is vicariously liable. The Court rejected this argument, stating that vicarious liability does not apply under Section 25 of the NDPS Act without proof of knowledge.
The State argued that the presumption of guilt should apply against the appellant. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only arises after the prosecution proves the foundational facts.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The court followed the ratio in Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653]* which held that the conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires proof that the vehicle was used with the knowledge and consent of the owner.
  • The court reiterated the principle laid down in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417]* that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only arises after the prosecution proves the foundational facts.
See also  Supreme Court Relieves Borrowers: No Compound Interest During Moratorium Period (27 November 2020)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence demonstrating that the truck owner, Harbhajan Singh, knowingly allowed his vehicle to be used for drug trafficking. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption of guilt under Section 35 of the NDPS Act. The court also highlighted that mere ownership of the vehicle is not sufficient to establish guilt under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The court stressed that the prosecution bears the initial burden of proving that the owner had knowledge of the illegal activity, and this burden was not met in this case.

Reason Percentage
Lack of evidence of owner’s knowledge 60%
Failure to establish foundational facts 30%
Mere ownership not sufficient 10%
Category Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

Logical Reasoning:

Prosecution fails to prove Harbhajan Singh’s knowledge of drug trafficking
↓
Initial burden not discharged to prove foundational facts
↓
Presumption under Section 35 of NDPS Act does not arise
↓
Mere ownership is not sufficient for conviction
↓
Conviction of Harbhajan Singh is overturned

The court clarified that the prosecution must first prove the owner’s knowledge of the illegal activity before the burden shifts to the accused. The court observed that the lower courts had erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the appellant without the prosecution first establishing the foundational facts.

The Supreme Court stated:

“In the case in hand, the primary error committed by the Courts below while convicting the Appellant is that the onus is sought to be shifted on him to prove his innocence without the foundational facts having been proved by the prosecution.”

“In the case in hand, the prosecution has failed to produce any material on record to show that the vehicle in question, if was used for any illegal activity, was used with the knowledge and consent of the Appellant.”

“Even presumption as provided for under Section 35 of the NDPS Act will not be available for the reason that the prosecution had failed to discharge initial burden on it to prove the foundational facts.”

Key Takeaways

  • The owner of a vehicle cannot be convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act solely based on the fact of ownership.
  • The prosecution must prove that the owner knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for drug trafficking.
  • The presumption of guilt under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only applies after the prosecution has established the foundational facts.
  • The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the owner’s knowledge, and it cannot be shifted to the accused without the foundational facts being proved.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and discharged the bail bonds of the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the owner of a vehicle cannot be convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act unless the prosecution proves that the owner had knowledge and consented to the use of the vehicle for drug trafficking. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and mere ownership of the vehicle is not sufficient for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. It also clarifies that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act is not automatic and only arises after the prosecution has established the foundational facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana provides clarity on the application of Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the owner’s knowledge and consent for the vehicle to be used in drug trafficking. This judgment protects vehicle owners from being held liable for the actions of others without their knowledge or consent, reinforcing the importance of due process and the burden of proof in criminal cases.

Source: Harbhajan Singh vs State of Haryana