The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely owning or being the registered owner of a vehicle from which contraband is recovered is not enough to fasten criminal liability under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Justice Anil Kumar Upman dismissed the State’s plea challenging the acquittal of Gopal Singh, observing that the prosecution had failed to produce material showing that he knowingly permitted his vehicle to be used for transporting the contraband.
The case arose from the recovery of 348 kilograms of poppy straw from an abandoned Scorpio vehicle bearing registration number MP-44-R-0786 on July 28, 2016. The police subsequently filed a charge-sheet against several accused persons, including Gopal Singh, under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
The trial court acquitted all the accused on August 18, 2025, finding that the prosecution had not established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The State argued that Singh had purchased the vehicle and relied on his alleged ownership to connect him with the contraband. The High Court, however, found no evidence showing that he knew the vehicle was being used by the co-accused for transporting the contraband.
The High Court noted that Singh had been implicated primarily because of his connection with the vehicle. However, the prosecution had failed to establish that the co-accused were actually transporting the recovered contraband in the vehicle.
The Court emphasised that ownership alone does not satisfy Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which applies when an owner or person having control of a vehicle “knowingly permits it to be used” for committing an offence.
The Court observed:
“Unless it can be established, at least prima facie, that the accused had conscious knowledge that his house, vehicle, premises, or any other property was being used for the storage, concealment, or transportation of contraband, no offence under Section 25 can be said to be made out.”
The Court further held that “the essential ingredient of knowledge cannot be presumed merely from ownership of the property.” It said the prosecution must place material showing that the owner knew his vehicle was being used for an offence under the NDPS Act.
The Court also cautioned that the police cannot rely blindly on the statutory presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act to implicate a vehicle owner. The prosecution must first bring cogent material or evidence to discharge the preliminary burden; the presumption cannot operate “in vacuum.”
Justice Upman found no illegality, perversity or manifest error in the trial court’s acquittal. The Court held that there was no material showing Singh’s knowledge, consent or involvement in the alleged transportation of the contraband.
The criminal leave to appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the State’s application seeking condonation of delay was also dismissed.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan, Through PP v. Gopal Singh
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 15/2026
