Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1953 of 2014
Decided On : 16-01-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 54 – Presumption from possession of illicit articles – Before Court holds accused guilty of offence under NDPS Act, possession is something that prosecution needs to establish with cogent evidence – If accused is found to be in possession of any contraband which is a narcotic drug, it is for accused to account for such possession satisfactorily, if not, presumption under Section 54 comes into place – Unless and until contrary is proved in trial of cases involving offences coming within purview of NDPS Act, it may be presumed that accused has committed offence under the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him and for possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily – It is burden of prosecution to establish that contraband was seized from conscious possession of accused – Only when that aspect has been successfully proved by prosecution, onus will shift to accused to account for possession legally and satisfactorily. (Paras 14 and 16)
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 35 – Presumption of culpable mental state – In any prosecution under NDPS Act, court shall presume that accused had requisite mental state, including intention, knowledge, and motive, unless accused can prove otherwise – This shifts burden of proof onto accused to demonstrate that they lacked knowledge or intent regarding possession of drugs – Possession under NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious – Conscious possession implies that person knew that he had illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had intent or knowledge of its illegal nature. (Paras 20 and 21)
(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8 read with Sections 15 and 54 – Seizure of Poppy Husk – Conviction and sentence – Appellant was found to be in conscious possession of three cartons containing poppy husk – Defence put forward by appellant that he had no idea about three cartons and that he got down from coach alongwith three cartons only because officers asked him to come out of coach is something which is not palatable to Court – In such circumstances, Section 54 comes into play and court would be justified in drawing presumption that accused was in conscious possession – Judgment and order of conviction affirmed. (Paras 17, 19, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2013 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Crl.A.No.1213 of 1997 by which High Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
High Court committed no error in dismissing appeal and thereby affirming judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The court discusses presumption from possession under NDPS Act and burden of proof shifting to the accused once the contraband is shown to be in possession (Paras 14-16) (!) - It explains Section 54 presumption from possession of illicit articles and its application to require conscious possession proven by prosecution (Paras 15-19) (!) (!) (!) - It addresses conscious possession as requiring both physical possession and knowledge/intent regarding illicit nature (Paras 21-22) (!) - The Court cites Avtar Singh for requirements of possession and the need for proper examination under Section 313 CrPC (Paras 12-13) (!) - The Supreme Court upheld conviction, finding appellant in conscious possession of three cartons containing poppy husk and rejected defense of mere presence at platform (Paras 17-19) (!) (!) - The verdict references that the High Court’s dismissal of appeal was correct and that the appellant’s appeal is dismissed (Paras 24-26) (!) (!) - The facts establish that a FIR/charge was for section 8/15 NDPS Act; trial and HC upheld conviction (Paras 6-7, 10-11) (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Crl.A.No.1213 of 1997 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short “the NDPS Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:
“Regarding registration of the crime, it is submitted that I, ASI M.Beg received information from the informer while attending the duty on 29.12.96 at 22.15 o'clock that a dark complexioned person is traveling in Bhopal Rajkot 1270 up train in the gallery of the bathroom at the last compartment of General Coach, carrying three separate cartoon packets. He is sitting on one of them. This information was entered in General Diary no. 2381 on 29.12.96 and to confirm the information constable Braj Mohan was sent to summon witnesses Rakesh and Prakash and they were made aware of the information received from the informer. The panchnama of the information of the information was prepared. Headquarter of senior officials of Railway Region Indore is in Indore. As per the Information, on the possibility of the alteration of article and for the confirmation of the said information being necessary and looking at the circumstances, the search warrant could not be received whose panchnama has been prepared. Two copies of the panchnama of the information of the informer, in the situation of not receiving the search warrant the copy of the panchnama under section 42 of NDPS Act was sent to Superintendent of Police Railway, Indore through constable Dispatch rider no. 6735 of police station on 29.12.96. As per the information mentioned in General Diary No., reached along with Head Constable Bharat Pandey, Head Constable Pradeep Singh, Constable Brij Mohan Singh with the summoned witnesses, necessary materials Tarazu, baant, seal, shellac etc to the spot at Platform no.1 of railway station, near parcel office, near ver bridge. On the arrival of the train, deputed accompanied force near to the coach and train guard constable 405 Umashankar and 610 Rajendra Singh. Searched the suspect along with the witnesses in the coach No. 91105 and on confirming the features of the suspect before the witnesses and in his sudden attempt to leave the coach, he was stopped with the assistance of accompanying force. He was summoned along with three cartoons he possessed, out of the coach. Since, it will take time on the confirmation of the information and the train stays for the less time. The moment he came out with the luggage out of the train, was asked name and address. He told his name Rakesh son of Shankar Lal resident of Sanwal Kheda, Tehsil and District Hoshangabad. Subsequently also stated that at present he is living in Chhola Naka House No.44, in the house of Kallu at Bhopal and paying the rent of Rs 300/- per month. So, he was informed that he is having the opium poppy husk in three cartoons which he possessed and he is smuggling to sell them. I have to take the search of all three cartoons possessed by you. You could give your search before Magistrate or Gazetted officer or even could be . given before me. You could give your search to anyone. On this, appearing Rakesh gave his consent to give the search to me of which the panchnama of the consent was prepared before the witnesses. Rakesh took the body search of the force accompanying me and the witnesses. Nothing suspected object could be found. Thereafter, the search of the body of Rakesh was conducted. The three cartoons were searched then opium poppy husk was found which was smelt and tasted to witnesses who revealed to be opi
(1) Presumption from possession of illicit articles – Unless and until contrary is proved in trial of cases involving offences coming within purview of NDPS Act, it may be presumed that accused has c....
Conscious possession must be established by prosecution in narcotics cases, shifting burden to the accused to explain possession; minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution’s case.
Point of law: While upholding the constitutional validity of sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Apex Court has, however, reiterated that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degre....
The mandatory nature of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is upheld, ensuring strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related offenses, while presuming culpable mental state based on posse....
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
The recovery of contraband from a public place does not require compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the presumption of conscious possession under Section 54 places the burden of proof on ....
Conscious possession must be established for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere proximity to contraband is insufficient.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove conscious possession of contraband and the application of presumption of culpable mental state unde....
The court affirmed that once possession of narcotics is established, the accused must prove lack of knowledge regarding the substance's illicit nature, as per Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.
The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions, credibility of witness testimonies, and conscious possession of contraband in upholding the conviction and sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
