https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169444 A co-owner of a truck could not be held liable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the facts proved, because there was no evidence that he knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used for an improper purpose. The Court held that Section 25 required proof of conscious permission or involvement, which was absent. It also held that the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 could arise only after the prosecution established foundational facts showing knowledge of misuse; a different residential address used when purchasing the vehicle was insufficient by itself. The conviction was therefore not sustainable. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169444 A co-owner of a truck could not be held liable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the facts proved, because there was no evidence that he knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used for an improper purpose. The Court held that Section 25 required proof of conscious permission or involvement, which was absent. It also held that the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 could arise only after the prosecution established foundational facts showing knowledge of misuse; a different residential address used when purchasing the vehicle was insufficient by itself. The conviction was therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169444