Sitting in Vehicle carrying Contraband attracts Presumption under NDPS Act: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has reinforced the stringent evidentiary standards of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ruling that the presence of individuals inside a vehicle where a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances is recovered creates a formidable statutory presumption of guilt under NDPS Act, that cannot be displaced by unsubstantiated claims of being mere bystanders.

A bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhumala and Justice Helen Dawngliani heard the appeal against a conviction involving the seizure of nearly 30,000 Yaba tablets. The appellants challenged the Trial Court's verdict, primarily contesting the lack of independent witnesses and procedural lapses under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Key Takeaways

Custody Over Ownership

The Gauhati High Court clarified that criminal liability in narcotic cases is tied to the possession and presence within a conveyance, regardless of whether the accused holds the legal title to the vehicle.

Statutory Presumption Triggered

Once the prosecution establishes the foundational fact of recovery from a vehicle occupied by the accused, the burden shifts entirely to the defense under Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Procedural Substantiality

Procedural irregularities under Section 52-A do not automatically vitiate a trial if the chain of custody and forensic integrity of the samples are substantially established.

Scientific Identification Trumps Witness Memory

The appellants argued that the prosecution's failure to produce civilian witnesses and the inability of police witnesses to recall the specific color of the seized tablets created reasonable doubt. However, the Gauhati High Court held that the scientific identification of methamphetamine by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) carries superior evidentiary weight.

The Bench expressed that "The question whether the tablets were 'YABA' in the colloquial sense is not determinative by itself. What is material is the scientific identification of the substance contained in the representative sample. Once the FSL examination establishes the presence of methamphetamine, the evidentiary value of the scientific report cannot be discarded merely because the police witnesses did not remember the colour or markings on the tablets."

Strict Compliance with Section 52-A and Chain of Custody

Addressing the challenge regarding Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court noted that the seized items were produced before a Magistrate the very next day. Relying on Bharat Aambale versus State of Chhatisgarh ( "2025 INSC 78": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 16), the Court emphasized that substantial compliance is the benchmark.

Ratio

In prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, once the prosecution proves the foundational facts, occupancy of the vehicle, recovery of contraband, and a secure chain of custody, the statutory presumption of a culpable mental state arises. A mere physical presence in a vehicle where contraband is concealed in compartments like the 'dickey' or 'music box' constitutes possession, shifting the burden to the accused to provide a 'probable and satisfactory explanation' to displace the presumption under Sections 35 and 54.

Background

The case originated on October 18, 2022, when Dillai Police intercepted an i20 vehicle at a Naka checking point. A search led to the recovery of 29,800 Yaba tablets hidden in brown bags and the vehicle's music box. The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong, under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the appeal, the defense cited Bishwajit Dey versus The State of Assam ( "(2025) 3 SCC 241": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 244) and Avtar Singh versus State of Punjab ( "(2002) 7 SCC 419": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 5) to argue against the inference of possession. However, the High Court distinguished these precedents, noting that unlike cases involving mere proximity to bags, the appellants here were the sole occupants of the private vehicle. The Gauhati High Court further noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure amendments regarding videography, as suggested in Shafhi Mohammad versus State Of Himachal Pradesh ( "(2018) 5 SCC 311": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 1093), could not be applied retrospectively to this 2022 case.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.A./230/2025
Case Title: Md. Kamal Hassan and 2 Ors vs. The State of Assam
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. D. Goswami, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. A. Begum, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 1446