LexRAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2008 : 2025 INSC 96 Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1953 of 2014) 16 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in upholding the judgment of the trial court, thereby upholding the appellant guilty of conscious possession of poppy husk. Headnotes† Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.54 – Scope of – Presumption of possession of illicit articles: Held: As per s.54, unless and until the contrary is proved in trial, it may be presumed that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him and for the possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily – Burden is on prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused, and when that is proved, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily – Appellant was found to be in conscious possession of poppy husk, and the defence put forward by him that he had no idea about the three cartons and that he got down from the coach along with the three cartons only on the directions of the officers to do so is not palatable – Appellant failed to explain how come he was sitting on one of the cartons and the other two cartons were closely placed next to him, and thus, s.54 was attracted – Court would be justified in drawing the presumption that the accused was in conscious possession – High Court committed no error in dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. [Paras 15-19, 24]. Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.35 – Presumption of culpable mental state: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 2009 Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Held: Possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious – Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature – Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature, thereby requiring both physical control and mental awareness – s.35 states that in any prosecution under the NDPS Act, the court shall presume that the accused had the requisite mental state, including intention, knowledge, and motive, unless the accused can prove otherwise – Thus, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate that they lacked knowledge or intent regarding the possession of the drugs. [Paras 20 and 21] Case Law Cited Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [2000] 1 SCR 542 : (2000) 2 SCC 513; Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 716 : (2003) 7 SCC 465; Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [2002] Supp. 2 SCR 482 : (2002) 7 SCC 419 – referred to. List of Acts Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Conscious Possession, Knowledge, Narcotics; Presumption of possession of illicit articles; Presumption of culpable mental state; Conscious possession of poppy husk. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1953 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2013 of the High Court of M.P. at Indore in CRLA No. 1213 of 1997 Appearances for Parties Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Atul Dong, Aniket Patel, Advs. for the Appellant. 2010 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G., Aditya Vaibhav Singh Ga, Sarad Kumar Singhania Aor, Sunny Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore in Crl.A.No.1213 of 1997 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short “the NDPS Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under: (i) An ASI officer by name Musharraf Beg lodged an FIR No.713/96 dated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.