Section 25 NDPS Act Creates Vicarious Liability Against Owner Who Knowingly Permits Usage Of Premises: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court reiterated that Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) creates a vicarious liability against the person who is the owner who knowingly permits usage of premises.
The Court reiterated thus in a writ petition questioning the registration of a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, and 27 of NDPS Act and Sections 290 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “There should be more than prima facie material to hold that the owner or occupier of the premises was in complete knowledge of what was happening in the premises, as Section 25 creates a vicarious liability against the person who is the owner who has knowingly permitted usage of premises, knowledge pervades the provision of law.”
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi appeared for the petitioner while HCGP P. Thejesh appeared for the respondents.
In this case, one M/s Victory, an event management company enquired about the property of the petitioner and made a payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the property manager towards renting out the property for an event of one person for the celebration of his birthday. Thereafter, the company put up an invitation “Vasu’s birthday – Sunset to Sunrise Victory”. On receipt of credible information that drugs were freely distributed in the said premises, Police conducted a search, which resulted 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 was roped in as accused No.6. The reason for the petitioner being roped in was that the property stood in his name. Therefore, he was also guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27B of NDPS Act. Hence, the petitioner challenged the registration of crime against him before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “… the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of BHOLA SINGH and HARBHAJAN SINGH supra would clearly cover the issue on all fours, as the petitioner, even according to the search party, did not know what was happening in the premises, as it is at the time of investigation, preliminary though, reveals that the petitioner who sits elsewhere did not know for what purpose the premises was taken for rent on the said date.”
The Court added that it would be unjust to permit to be tried under Section 25 of the Act, on the score that Section 35 of the Act raises a presumption against the petitioner.
“In the light of unequivocal facts narrated hereinabove and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court and other High Courts, interpreting Section 25, as also prima facie view of the prosecution that the petitioner was not within the knowledge of what was happening in his property, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, failure of which, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the case.
Cause Title- R. Gopal Reddy v. Mohammed Mukaram & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi and Advocate Sanjeevini Navadgi.
Respondents: HCGP P. Thejesh