Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In recent years, the bug of drug abuse has extended its flexible hands in almost every aspect of public life and has had a long list of damaging effects on the society in which it has been unhindered.
In India, a need was felt to deal and regulate the offences done in the context of usage if opium and cannabis due to it's past history. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was designed to monitor the use of some drugs and laid down some essential principles to govern the behaviour of people in terms of how they use it and in what amount it could be used. One of the most important and over reaching principles of this act is "reverse burden of proof".
The principle of reverse burden of proof says that if a person who is found to be in the possession of any drug then the court presumes the culpable mental state of that person. That means the court would presume the intention and knowledge of that person regarding the usage and possession of that drug which suffice to lead a prosecution of any person under NDPS Act.
Recently, the Apex Court set aside a conviction of a person stating that principle of reverse burden of proof doesn't exonerate prosecution from establishing prima facie case. The Supreme Court bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indira Banerjee set aside the conviction of an accused charged under Sections 8 and 18(b) of the NDPS Act with a rigorous imprisonment of 10 long years along with fine.
The court held that though presumption culpable mental state is there but that doesn't mean that the prosecution is done with their duty. If a reasonable doubt is raised by the accused for his defence then the benefit will naturally have to go to the accused. In this case the apex court observed that the seized sample was not produced at the right time before the court which led to a delay causing a reasonable amount of doubt along with the doubt regarding the identity attached to it. hence, conviction was set aside.
86540
103860
630
114
59824