In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that premises owners can only be held liable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, if they “knowingly permit” their property to be used for the commission of an offence. The decision was delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna in the case of R. Gopal Reddy vs. Mohammed Mukaram (Writ Petition No. 13943 of 2024) on August 31, 2024.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on May 19, 2024, when M/s Victory, an event management company, rented a property owned by the petitioner, Mr. R. Gopal Reddy, for a birthday celebration event titled “Vasu’s Birthday – Sunset to Sunrise Victory.” In the early hours of May 20, 2024, the police, acting on credible information, conducted a search of the premises and seized several narcotic drugs, including Ganja, MDMA pills, and Cocaine. Most of the individuals present tested positive for drug consumption, leading to the registration of a crime in Crime No. 329 of 2024 by the Hebbagodi Police Station for offences under the NDPS Act and Sections 290 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner, Mr. R. Gopal Reddy, was named as Accused No. 6 on the grounds that the property where the alleged offences took place was registered in his name. The petition sought to quash the FIR against him, arguing that he had no knowledge of the illegal activities on his premises.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Interpretation of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985: The core issue was whether the owner of the premises could be held liable under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the owner must “knowingly permit” the use of their premises for illegal activities. The petitioner argued that he had no knowledge of the premises being used for the distribution or consumption of drugs, and therefore, the liability under Section 25 should not be applicable.
2. Application of Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985: Section 35 deals with the presumption of a culpable mental state. The prosecution argued that the petitioner, as the owner of the premises, should be presumed to have knowledge of the illegal activities.
3. Burden of Proof: The Court examined whether the prosecution had discharged its initial burden to establish the “foundational facts” that would warrant a presumption of knowledge or intent on the part of the petitioner.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled in favour of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of “knowledge” in establishing liability under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The Court held:
“Section 25 of the NDPS Act mandates that the owner must ‘knowingly permit’ the use of their premises for the commission of an offence. Mere ownership of the premises without evidence of conscious knowledge of the activities conducted therein does not attract penal consequences under this section.”
The Court further relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab and Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, which underscored that a mere ownership or presence does not suffice to establish liability under Section 25 unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the owner had knowledge of the illegal use of their property.
“The sine qua non for the applicability of Section 25 of the Act is that the prosecution must prove the knowledge of the owner regarding the illegal activities beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such evidence, no presumption under Section 35 can be drawn,” observed the Court.
The Court also pointed out that the petitioner, a 68-year-old individual, was residing elsewhere, and the property was managed by a manager. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner was aware of the illegal activities. The Court noted:
“It would be unjust to subject the petitioner to a trial under Section 25 of the NDPS Act merely based on ownership without any prima facie evidence of his knowledge or intent to permit the illegal use of his premises.”
The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR against Mr. R. Gopal Reddy in Crime No. 329 of 2024, stating that prosecuting him without any proof of “conscious knowledge” would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.
Lawyers and Parties Involved
– Petitioner: Mr. R. Gopal Reddy, represented by Senior Advocate Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, assisted by Advocate Smt. Sanjeevini Navadgi.
– Respondents: Mr. Mohammed Mukaram, Police Inspector, represented by High Court Government Pleader Sri Thejesh P., and the State of Karnataka, represented by its Station House Officer, Hebbagodi Police Station.
