Supreme Court overturns conviction under NDPS Act for lack of evidence: Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana (25 April 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 424
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a vehicle owner be held liable for drug trafficking if their vehicle is used for such purposes without their knowledge? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The court clarified that the owner’s knowledge of the illegal activity is essential for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, overturned the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing the prosecution’s failure to prove the foundational facts necessary for conviction.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 15 May 2000, when a truck owned by the Appellant, Harbhajan Singh, overturned near Hanuman Mandir, Hisar Road, Village Agroha. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 16 May 2000, based on information from a police patrol party. According to witnesses Ram Sarup (PW-6) and Naresh Kumar (PW-10), the truck accident occurred around 9:00 PM on 15 May 2000, after the truck hit a divider. The driver and cleaner of the truck, identified as Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh, respectively, left the scene under the pretext of informing the owner, Harbhajan Singh, but never returned. The police, suspecting the truck was carrying contraband, seized the bags and sent samples for testing. A chargesheet was filed against Joginder Singh, Gurmail Singh, and Harbhajan Singh. However, the Trial Court acquitted Joginder Singh and Gurmail Singh after the witnesses who identified them turned hostile. Harbhajan Singh, the registered owner of the truck, was convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The High Court upheld this conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Harbhajan Singh under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 10 years of imprisonment. The Trial Court reasoned that the driver and cleaner, being poor, would not risk smuggling contraband without the owner’s knowledge. The High Court upheld the conviction. The Appellant, Harbhajan Singh, then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which states:

“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, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits 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.”

The court also considered Section 35 of the NDPS Act, which 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.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that for Section 25 of the NDPS Act to apply, the owner must knowingly permit the use of their vehicle for an offense. Further, the court clarified that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only applies after the prosecution has established the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to provide evidence that he had knowledge that the truck was being used for illegal activities.
• The Appellant argued that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked because the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts.
• The Appellant stated that he had given the truck on hire to one Kashmir Singh for carrying sand and was not present at the spot.
• The Appellant relied on judgments such as Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr., Customs and Central Excise [(2005) 4 SCC 146], State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam [(2010) 15 SCC 369], Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653], and Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 9 SCC 202] to support his claim that the owner’s knowledge is necessary for conviction.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Appellant failed to prove that the truck was not being used for illegal activities.
• The State contended that the owner of the truck is vicariously liable for the actions of the driver and cleaner.
• The State argued that the Appellant’s claim that the truck was hired for carrying sand was not supported by evidence.
• The State argued that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act applies against the Appellant.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove the foundational facts before the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act could be invoked. This highlighted the importance of the prosecution’s burden of proof and the need for actual knowledge on the part of the owner, rather than relying on a presumption of guilt.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 25 of the NDPS Act can be sustained when there is no evidence to show that the vehicle was used with his knowledge and consent for the commission of an offense.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr., Customs and Central Excise [(2005) 4 SCC 146] – The court considered this case to understand the interpretation of Section 25 of the NDPS Act and the requirement of knowledge for holding an owner liable.
• State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam [(2010) 15 SCC 369] – This case was considered to further clarify the need for proof of the owner’s knowledge in cases under the NDPS Act.
• Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653] – The court relied heavily on this case, which held that the owner’s knowledge and consent are essential for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The court also clarified that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only applies after the prosecution has proven the foundational facts.
• Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 9 SCC 202] – This case was cited to reinforce the principle that the prosecution must establish the foundational facts before the burden shifts to the accused.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417] – This case was considered while discussing the applicability of Section 35 of the NDPS Act and the initial burden on the prosecution to prove foundational facts.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 25, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – This section specifies the punishment for allowing premises or vehicles to be used for the commission of an offense under the NDPS Act. The court interpreted this section to require proof that the owner knowingly permitted the use of their vehicle for illegal activities.
• Section 35, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – This section deals with the presumption of culpable mental state. The court clarified that this presumption only applies after the prosecution has proven the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 11 SCC 653]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, emphasizing that the owner’s knowledge and consent are essential for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The court also reiterated that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only applies after the prosecution has proven the foundational facts.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, which clarified that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only arises after the prosecution has discharged its initial burden to prove the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the Appellant’s knowledge and consent in the use of his vehicle for illegal activities. The court emphasized the importance of the prosecution discharging its initial burden of proof before any presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act could be invoked. The court also took into account the fact that the driver and cleaner of the truck were acquitted, and the Appellant was not present at the scene of the crime. The court was also influenced by the fact that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the extra judicial confession was not proved.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%) such as the lack of evidence and the acquittal of the driver and cleaner, than by the strict interpretation of the law (40%).

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of vicarious liability of the owner, but rejected them because there was no evidence to prove the foundational facts. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the owner’s knowledge and consent beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The prosecution failed to produce any material on record to show that the vehicle was used for an illegal activity with the knowledge and consent of the Appellant.
• The presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act is not applicable because the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proving the foundational facts.
• The driver and cleaner were acquitted, and the Appellant was not present at the scene of the crime.

“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.”

“Hence, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be legally sustained.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, requiring proof of the owner’s knowledge, and the proper application of the burden of proof under Section 35 of the NDPS Act. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused.

The decision has potential implications for future cases under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to establish the owner’s knowledge and consent before a conviction can be sustained. It clarifies that the mere ownership of a vehicle used in an offense is not sufficient for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforced the existing principles of the burden of proof and the requirement of knowledge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The court’s decision clarifies that the prosecution must prove the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused. The court rejected the argument that the owner could be held vicariously liable without proof of their knowledge.

Key Takeaways

• The owner of a vehicle cannot be convicted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act unless it is proven that they knowingly permitted the use of their vehicle for an offense.
• The prosecution must discharge its initial burden of proving the foundational facts before the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act can be invoked.
• Mere ownership of a vehicle used in an offense is not sufficient for conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
• The court’s decision reinforces the importance of the prosecution’s burden of proof in criminal cases.

This judgment will likely lead to more scrutiny of evidence in cases involving vehicle owners under the NDPS Act. It will also serve as a reminder to law enforcement that they must establish the owner’s knowledge and consent before seeking a conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments passed by the lower courts, and discharged the bail bonds of the Appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution must prove that the owner of the vehicle knowingly permitted its use for the commission of an offense. The court clarified that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act only applies after the prosecution has proven the foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision reinforces the existing legal position and clarifies the burden of proof in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana overturned the conviction of the Appellant under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove that the Appellant knowingly permitted the use of his vehicle for an illegal activity. This judgment underscores the importance of the prosecution’s burden of proof and the need for actual knowledge on the part of the owner for a conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act.