Proof Of Vehicle Ownership Not Needed To Establish Possession Of Contraband If Accused Found Inside Vehicle: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that when contraband is recovered from a private vehicle in which the accused persons are found traveling, the statutory requirement of conscious possession stands fully satisfied under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, even in the absence of absolute proof regarding the vehicle's ownership.

Dismissing a batch of criminal appeals challenging a trial court judgment convicting four individuals for possessing three kilograms of ganja, the Court highlighted that establishing a mandatory link between the offender and the legal ownership of the vehicle would create a dangerous loophole, allowing individuals transporting illicit substances in stolen or unauthorized vehicles with forged number plates to easily evade the clutches of law.

The Bench of Justice A Badharudeen observed, "Therefore, merely because PW4 turned hostile to the prosecution, it could not be held that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence with regard to the possession of the vehicle. If a proposition is laid holding the view that when contraband was recovered from a vehicle, its ownership by the offender has relevance, persons carrying contraband in stolen vehicle and vehicles possessed without any authorisation and by using fake registration numbers would escape from prosecution after carrying the contraband. Therefore, when contraband was recovered from a vehicle on finding possession of the same by the accused, the requirement of possession said to be satisfied, even without proof of the ownership of the same."

Advocate PK Ravisankar appeared for the Appellants, while PP Vipin Narayan A appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The prosecution alleged that the accused persons were found in conscious possession of three kilograms of ganja in violation of the statutory prohibitions. Consequently, they were charged with offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The lower court, upon evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution—which included oral testimonies of witnesses, documentary evidence, and material objects—found the accused persons guilty. Accordingly, the trial court convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, while allowing the benefit of set-off for the period of detention already undergone. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred criminal appeals before the High Court.

Contentions of the Appellants

The Appellants submitted that the independent recovery witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution, thereby casting a shadow of doubt on the alleged recovery of the contraband.

It was contended that there was a material contradiction regarding the safe custody of the contraband. While the detecting officer stated that the seized items were in the custody of the station writer after being returned by the Magistrate, the investigating officer deposed that they were held by the detecting officer himself. This discrepancy raised a reasonable doubt as to the sanctity of the custody.

The appellants argued that while the detecting officer purportedly drew samples weighing a specific quantity each, the chemical analysis report revealed a significant reduction in the weight of the samples upon reaching the laboratory, which was fatal to the prosecution's case.

It was further urged that although the alleged recovery was effected from a vehicle, the prosecution failed to seize the said vehicle or offer any explanation connecting it to the commission of the crime.

Per contra, the State countered the arguments by submitting that the trial court had meticulously evaluated the entire evidence on record and rightly discarded the objections raised by the defence. It was contended that the testimony of the official witnesses was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. Therefore, the respondent maintained that the impugned judgment warranted no interference and the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Observations and Findings of the Court

The High Court observed that the trial court primarily relied upon the consistent testimonies of the official witnesses, which were duly supported by investigative records, to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.

It was held that the mere fact that independent witnesses turned hostile did not efface or undermine the prosecution case, as the oral evidence of the police officials inspired full confidence and remained unshaken during cross-examination. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the defence theory of prior enmity between the detecting officer and the appellants.

Regarding the statutory requirements under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the court placed reliance on established precedents of the Apex Court to hold that procedural non-compliance or irregularities are not fatal to the trial unless they create material discrepancies that render the physical evidence doubtful.

The court observed that the initial burden lay on the accused to establish non-compliance on a preponderance of probabilities, which they failed to do. Since the balance of the seized contraband was produced in evidence and inspired confidence, the court concluded that the conscious possession of the illicit article by the appellants was fully established.

Addressing the contention regarding the brief custody of the contraband between its return by the Magistrate and its production before the Special Court, the court distinguished the facts from cases involving long delays and unsealed items. It was observed that the minor variation in the statements of the official witnesses regarding who held the keys or custody during that short interval did not point towards tampering.

Similarly, the court brushed aside the argument regarding the reduction in the weight of the samples at the laboratory, noting that such minor differences are common due to the precision scales used in laboratories compared to ordinary scales, and further due to the natural drying process of organic substances like ganja.

"When ganja is the contraband, possibility of dryness is always there. Most importantly, here the samples were collected in a tamper-proof manner and the expert never opined any discrepancy in the samples reached the FSL. Therefore, the weight difference of the sample in this case is of no serious consequence", the Court held.

On the issue of the vehicle's ownership, the court rejected the plea that the prosecution's failure to prove ownership was fatal. It was held that when a contraband is recovered from a private vehicle in which the accused persons were found travelling, the factum of possession and control stands satisfied.

The court said that requiring proof of ownership in every case would allow offenders using stolen or unauthorized vehicles with fake registration numbers to escape the clutches of law. Lastly, the court found that the mandatory report regarding the transmission of information to superior officers had been duly complied with, rendering the objections of the defence meritless.

The Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and held that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants required no interference. Consequently, both criminal appeals were dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the Special Judge was confirmed.

The court cancelled the bail bonds executed by the appellants and directed them to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith to undergo the remaining period of their sentence. The trial court was further directed to take immediate steps to execute the sentence in the event of the appellants' failure to surrender.

Cause Title: Sahid K and Ors. v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:45583]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate PK Ravisankar

Respondent: PP Vipin Narayan A

Click here to read/download the Judgment