NDPS Act: HC relief for man who rented out Bengaluru farmhouse for rave party | Bengaluru News

BENGALURU: Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), there should be more than just prima facie evidence to establish that the owner/occupier of a building was fully aware of what was happening at the time. terrainthe supreme court recently governed.
“As stated in Article 25 of NDPS Act creates a vicious liability against the person who owner and who has knowingly and wilfully allowed the use of the premises, knowledge pervades the statutory provisions,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed in his order while allowing a petition filed by one R Gopal Reddy.
The 68-year-old resident of BTM Layout had contested the case registered against him by the Hebbagodi police under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, 27 of the NDPS Act and Sections 290 and 294 of the Penal Code.
He had rented out his property — GR Farms in Singena Agrahara, Hebbagodi — to host a birthday party on May 19, 2024. Based on reliable information that drugs were being distributed on the premises, the police conducted a search and seized several drugs including ganja, MDMA pills, cocaine and hydroganja. The premises were sealed and most of those present at the party tested positive for drug use.
The applicant was charged as accused no. 6, as the property was in his name. He was accused of harbouring criminals and therefore punishable under section 27B of the NDPS Act.
Reddy contested the proceedings and argued that he is 68 years old and lives elsewhere and that the property in question was managed by a property manager. Since he did not even know who was using the property and what he was doing, he claimed that he could not be involved in the case. On the other hand, the government counsel argued that it was a matter of process whether the petitioner had knowledge of the matter or not.
After perusing the pleadings, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, any person – whether the owner or the occupier – who knowingly allows a premises to be used for the commission of an offence is liable to punishment.
The judge pointed out that the Supreme Court in the Bhola Singh and Harbhajan Singh cases had clearly held that to be prosecuted, a person must have conscious knowledge that his or her premises were being used for the commission of a criminal offence.
The judge noted that even as per the search party and investigation, the applicant did not know what was happening on the premises and why it was rented. “Therefore, it would be unjust to try him under Section 25,” the judge said, quashing the proceedings against Reddy.