SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT: UNDER NDPS ACT, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE IS IMMATERIAL- WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED IS THE RECOVERY OF CONTRABAND ARTICLES AND THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE UNDER THE NDPS ACT.

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Rizwan Khan Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 09 SC CK 0017

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that to prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved. It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused. Ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. What is required to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband articles and the commission of an offence under the NDPS Act? Therefore, merely because of the ownership of the vehicle is not established and proved and/or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently, trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful in proving and establishing the recovery of the contraband articles from the accused on the spot. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the decision of the Special Court and High Court and held that both the courts below have rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Full Bench held that they are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Special Court and confirmed by the High Court and the conviction recorded by both the courts below. Full Bench did not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.