[NDPS Act] Presumption of culpability against accused rebuttable, does not sanction conviction on preponderance of probability: SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the presumption of culpability against an accused in a case under the NDPS Act is rebuttable and that it does not dispense with the requirement of the prosecution proving the case beyond reasonable doubt (Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh)..A Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Navin Sinha held that in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the presumption of culpability against an accused under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act is rebuttable..While the NDPS Act does provide for a reversed burden of proof, the same cannot sanction the conviction for an accused on the basis of preponderance of probability, the Court held. .The prosecution’s duty to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt is not dispensed with despite the reversed burden of proof, it added. The judgment reads,.“The presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35, and under Section 54 of the Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The presumptive provision with reverse burden of proof, does not sanction conviction on basis of preponderance of probability.”.Citing the precedent laid down by the Court in a 2008 case, the Court said that the right of an accused to a fair trial cannot be whittled down..The NDPS Act is a stringent legislation which provides for strict punishment. In a case under Section 37 of the Act, the prescribed punishment is for a sentence of 10 years without remission. The stringency of the provision calls for stronger scrutiny, the Court has said..“The gravity of the sentence and the stringency of the provisions will therefore call for a heightened scrutiny of the evidence for establishment of foundational facts by the prosecution.”Supreme Court.The Court was delivering its judgment in an appeal filed by a person who was convicted under Section 8C read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the possession of 48 kilograms, 200 gms of cannabis..The appellant was held to be the owner of a house from where the cannabis was recovered. However, the evidence pertaining to his ownership of the house was established on shaky grounds, that is, merely on the basis of records found in the voter list. His defence that he had sold the said property to a co-accused was rejected. The co-accused in the case was acquitted in trial..The village records pertaining to the sale of the house was not investigated by the Police which resulted in making the appellant an accused in the case..The Supreme Court, while allowing this appeal, set aside the order of conviction of the appellant and held it to be unsustainable..It was held by the Court that not only did the prosecution fail in establishing a prima facie case against the appellant, but there was also a “gross misappreciation” of evidence by the Courts below. .As such the, Supreme Court said that it would not be inhibited in protecting the liberty of the appellant, who now stands acquitted..Read Judgment: