IMPORTANT POINT
Knowledge of illegal activities is a prerequisite for liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish such knowledge.

ORDER :

(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 329 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 290 and 294 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The story in the case at hand would commence from 16-05-2024 in terms of what is averred in the petition. One M/s Victory (‘the Company’ for short), an event management Company enquires about the property of the petitioner and makes a payment of Rs.1,10,000/- to the property manager towards renting out the property for an event of one person by name Vasu for the celebration of his birthday. On 19-05-2024 the Company put up invitation titling “Vasu’s birthday – Sunset to Sunrise Victory”. In the wee hours of 20-05-2024, on receipt of credible information that drugs were freely distributed in the said premises, Police conducted a search, which results in seizure of several narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The seizure panchanama included drugs like Ganja, MDMA pills, Cocaine, Hydro-ganga and other psychotropic substances. The premises was sealed, most of the persons tested positive towards consumption of drugs. The petitioner is roped in as accused No.6. The reason for the petitioner being roped in is that the property stands in his name. Therefore, he is also guilty of offence punishable under Section 27B of the Act. Registering the crime against the petitioner is what has driven him to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi would contend that the petitioner is 68 years old residing elsewhere. It is the property managed by the property manager and he is sitting elsewhere being not even aware who takes the property and does what. He would submit that Section 25 of the Act is a complete answer to the allegation against the petitioner, as Section 25 mandates knowledge of the owner of the premises of it being used for distribution of drugs. On the said score, he seeks quashment of proceedings qua the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that whether the petitioner has the knowledge or not is a matter of trial. He cannot escape the clutches of law, as the investigation is still pending. With regard to the role of the petitioner in the entire episode of crime, he would contend that if proceedings are quashed, at this juncture against the petitioner, it would be a premium on the activities of the petitioner for letting his premises to be used for the activities as alleged. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Events that happened on 19-05-2024 through 20-05-2024 led to the subject crime. The seizure panchanama insofar as the present petitioner is concerned reads as follows:

It is the case of the person himself, who searched, that the petitioner is not in the know of things. No person has pointed out a finger at the petitioner as to the knowledge of consumption or distribution of drugs on the said date in the said premises. The petitioner is roped in, after a suo motu complaint found registered by the jurisdictional police. The complaint reads as follows:

It is then the petitioner is issued a notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., to appear before the Investigating Officer. It is the averment in the petition that it is then the petitioner comes to know about what has happened in the premises. It would not, on the face of it, become believable that the petitioner is not aware of what happened on 20-05-