Owner Of Premises Where Drugs Are Found Can Only Be Prosecuted If He Knowingly Permitted Use For Commission Of Offence: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the owner or occupier of a premise only if he knowingly permits it to be used for commission of the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), would he become punishable.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one R Gopal Reddy and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, 27 of the Act.

It said, “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.”

As per the prosecution 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 named Vasu for the celebration of his birthday.

In the early hours of 20-05-2024, on receipt of credible information, a raid was made and seized several narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Following this, the premises were sealed and the accused who is the owner of the property was made an accused in the case.

The petitioner contended that he is 68 years old and residing elsewhere. The property in question is managed by the property manager.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying whether the petitioner had the knowledge or not is a matter of trial. He cannot escape the clutches of law, as the investigation is still pending in the case.

Findings:

The bench noted that the official who conducted the seizure panchanama had said that the petitioner was not in the know of things. No other person has pointed a finger at the petitioner as to the knowledge of the consumption or distribution of drugs on the said date in the said premises.

The court referred to Section 25 of the Act which deals with punishment for allowing the premises to be used for the commission of an offence. 

Following this it held “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. Therefore, it would be unjust to permit him to be tried under Section 25 of the Act, on the score that Section 35 of the Act raises a presumption against the petitioner.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi for Advocate Sanjeevini Navadgi for Petitioner.

HCGP Thejesh P for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

Case Title: R Gopal Reddy AND Mohammed Mukaram

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13943 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order