Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 68-year-old man, was the owner of a property that was rented out through a property manager for a birthday party. On 20.05.2024, police raided the property, seized narcotic drugs, and registered an FIR for offences under the NDPS Act and IPC. The petitioner was named as accused No. 6 solely because the property stood in his name, without any evidence that he was present or had knowledge of the drug distribution. He filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR. The petitioner argued that Section 25 of the NDPS Act requires that the owner knowingly permits the premises to be used for an offence, and he had no such knowledge as he resided elsewhere and had entrusted the property to a manager. The State contended that the question of knowledge was a matter for trial. The court examined Section 25 and observed that the provision explicitly requires that the owner or occupier 'knowingly permits' the use of the premises. The court noted that the search panchanama itself recorded that the petitioner was not in the know of things. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 653, which held that mere ownership without evidence of involvement does not attract Section 25, the court was of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner were not sustainable. The judgment excerpt does not contain the final operative order, but the reasoning clearly indicated that the FIR qua the petitioner deserved to be quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - NDPS Act - Liability of Owner for Allowing Premises - Section 25, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The petitioner, owner of the premises where a drug party occurred, was charged under Section 25 for allegedly permitting the use of the premises for an offence; the court noted that Section 25 requires that the owner or occupier knowingly permits the use; relying on Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 653, it was observed that mere ownership without evidence of involvement or knowledge cannot attract Section 25; Held, the requirement of knowledge under Section 25 must be satisfied and mere ownership is insufficient (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the owner of premises can be held liable under Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for commission of an offence by another person in his premises, in the absence of any evidence that he knowingly permitted such use.
Law Points
- Section 25 NDPS Act requires knowledge or intentional permission by owner
- mere ownership of premises insufficient
- culpable mental state necessary
- relying on Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (08) 33
Writ Petition No. 13943 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Sanjeevini Navadgi, Thejesh P.
1. Mr. Mohammed Mukaram, Police Inspector; 2. The State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and complaint for offences under NDPS Act and IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 329/2024 registered by Hebbagodi Police and the complaint dated 20.05.2024, in so far as it concerns the petitioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, owner of the premises where a drug party was held, was arraigned as accused No. 6 without any evidence of his involvement or knowledge, and the FIR was registered against him for allowing the premises to be used for drug offences.
Issues
Whether the owner of premises can be prosecuted under Section 25 of the NDPS Act in the absence of evidence that he knowingly permitted the premises to be used for commission of an offence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that he is 68 years old, resides elsewhere, property managed by property manager, not aware of the event, and Section 25 requires knowledge which is absent.
Respondent argued that whether petitioner had knowledge is a matter of trial, and quashing proceedings would be premature.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the owner or occupier must be shown to have knowingly permitted the premises to be used for commission of an offence; mere ownership or control without evidence of such knowledge does not attract the provision.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 25 of the Act reads as follows: ... Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house ... knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence ... shall be punishable ...
It is the case of the person himself, who searched, that the petitioner is not in the know of things.
Procedural History
On 16.05.2024, an event management company inquired about renting the petitioner’s property for a birthday party, and the property manager handled the transaction. On 19.05.2024, a birthday party was held at the petitioner's property. On 20.05.2024, police conducted a search based on credible information and seized narcotic drugs. A complaint was lodged. On 21.05.2024, FIR No. 329/2024 was registered against the petitioner and others under the NDPS Act and IPC. On 23.05.2024, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR. The matter was heard and reserved for orders on 18.07.2024, and pronounced on 31.08.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 8(c), 22, 25, 27(a), 27(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 290, 294
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 41A
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
