TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC upholds conviction under Section 15 NDPS Act for conscious possession of contraband, rejecting ignorance defense</h1> <h3>RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH</h3> RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2025 INSC 96 ISSUES: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in conscious possession of the contraband (poppy husk) under the NDPS Act.Whether the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act applies when the accused fails to satisfactorily account for possession of illicit articles.The scope and application of the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.The evidentiary requirements to establish 'conscious possession' under the NDPS Act.Whether the failure of the trial court to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC on the issue of possession vitiates the conviction. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the prosecution successfully established that the accused was in 'conscious possession' of the three cartons containing poppy husk, rejecting the defense that the accused had no knowledge or control over the cartons.The Court reaffirmed that under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, 'it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence' in respect of narcotic drugs possessed and for which he fails to account satisfactorily.Section 35 of the NDPS Act shifts the burden to the accused to prove lack of knowledge or intent, and the Court found no satisfactory explanation was provided by the accused to rebut this presumption.The Court emphasized that 'conscious possession' requires both physical control and mental awareness of the illicit nature of the substance, and such possession was established on the facts.The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where failure to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC on possession was fatal, noting that in the present case, the accused's statement and evidence sufficiently addressed possession.The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly Sections 8, 15, 35, and 54, alongside the procedural safeguards under Section 313 CrPC.Judicial precedents such as Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab were analyzed, clarifying that possession entails custody or control and that mere physical proximity to contraband is insufficient without proof of conscious possession.The Court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must first prove possession beyond reasonable doubt, after which the burden shifts to the accused under statutory presumptions to explain possession satisfactorily.The Court underscored the evolution of the concept of 'conscious possession' through judicial interpretation, requiring both physical and mental elements.The Court found no error in the lower courts' application of these principles and no failure in examining the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC that would vitiate the conviction.
TaxTMI 