Supreme Court of India
RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 96
- Decided
- 16 January 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was in conscious possession of the poppy husk and that the High Court did not err in upholding the conviction.
Summary
The appellant, Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi, was intercepted on a train carrying three cartons later found to contain 50 kg of opium poppy husk. He claimed he was unaware of the cartons and had only complied with police directions to exit the coach. The trial court, relying on the seizure and the appellant's inability to explain his possession, convicted him under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act, imposing ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established conscious possession and whether the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act applied. The Court held that the evidence showed the appellant was in conscious possession, that the burden shifted to him to explain the possession, and that the lower courts had not erred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved conscious possession of poppy husk under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the presumption of possession under Section 54 of the NDPS Act applies in the absence of a satisfactory explanation by the accused.
- Whether the trial court and High Court erred in their assessment of the accused's mental state and failure to examine him under Section 313 CrPC regarding possession.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal on the ground of lack of evidence of conscious possession.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 15, s. 35, s. 54, s. 8
Subjects
Conscious PossessionKnowledgeNarcoticsPresumption of possession of illicit articlesPresumption of culpable mental stateConscious possession of poppy husk
Judgment
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2008 : 2025 INSC 96
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 1953 of 2014)
16 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the judgment of the
trial court, thereby upholding the appellant guilty of conscious
possession of poppy husk.
Headnotes†
Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.54 – Scope of – Presumption of possession of illicit
articles:
Held: As per s.54, unless and until the contrary is proved in trial, it
may be presumed that the accused has committed an offence under
the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him
and for the possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily –
Burden is on prosecution to establish that the contraband was
seized from the conscious possession of the accused, and when
that is proved, the onus will shift to the accused to account for
the possession legally and satisfactorily – Appellant was found to
be in conscious possession of poppy husk, and the defence put
forward by him that he had no idea about the three cartons and
that he got down from the coach along with the three cartons only
on the directions of the officers to do so is not palatable – Appellant
failed to explain how come he was sitting on one of the cartons
and the other two cartons were closely placed next to him, and
thus, s.54 was attracted – Court would be justified in drawing the
presumption that the accused was in conscious possession – High
Court committed no error in dismissing the appeal and thereby
affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial
court. [Paras 15-19, 24].
Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.35 – Presumption of culpable mental state:
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2009
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Held: Possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical
but also conscious – Conscious possession implies that the person
knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his
control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature –
Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not
only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance
but is also aware of its presence and nature, thereby requiring
both physical control and mental awareness – s.35 states that in
any prosecution under the NDPS Act, the court shall presume that
the accused had the requisite mental state, including intention,
knowledge, and motive, unless the accused can prove otherwise –
Thus, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate that
they lacked knowledge or intent regarding the possession of the
drugs. [Paras 20 and 21]
Case Law Cited
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [2000] 1 SCR
542 : (2000) 2 SCC 513; Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
[2003] Supp. 2 SCR 716 : (2003) 7 SCC 465; Avtar Singh v. State of
Punjab [2002] Supp. 2 SCR 482 : (2002) 7 SCC 419 – referred to.
List of Acts
Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Conscious Possession, Knowledge, Narcotics; Presumption of
possession of illicit articles; Presumption of culpable mental state;
Conscious possession of poppy husk.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1953 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2013 of the High Court
of M.P. at Indore in CRLA No. 1213 of 1997
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Atul Dong, Aniket
Patel, Advs. for the Appellant.
2010 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bhupendra Pratap Singh, D.A.G., Aditya Vaibhav Singh Ga, Sarad
Kumar Singhania Aor, Sunny Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2013
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at
Indore in Crl.A.No.1213 of 1997 by which the High Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the
judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court for the
offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short
“the NDPS Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:
(i) An ASI officer by name Musharraf Beg lodged an FIR No.713/96
dated 30.12.1996 with the S.H.O., Police Station, G.R.P. Ujjain
which reads thus:
”Regarding registration of the crime, it is submitted that
I, ASI M.Beg received information from the informer
while attending the duty on 29.12.96 at 22.15 o’clock
that a dark complexioned person is traveling in Bhopal
Rajkot 1270 up train in the gallery of the bathroom
at the last compartment of General Coach, carrying
three separate cartoon packets. He is sitting on one of
them. This information was entered in General Diary
no. 2381 on 29.12.96 and to confirm the information
constable Braj Mohan was sent to summon witnesses
Rakesh and Prakash and they were made aware
of the information received from the informer. The
panchnama of the information of the information was
prepared. Headquarter of senior officials of Railway
Region Indore is in Indore. As per the Information, on
the possibility of the alteration of article and for the
confirmation of the said information being necessary
and looking at the circumstances, the search
warrant could not be received whose panchnama
has been prepared. Two copies of the panchnama
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2011
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
of the information of the informer, in the situation
of not receiving the search warrant the copy of the
panchnama under section 42 of NDPS Act was sent
to Superintendent of Police Railway, Indore through
constable Dispatch rider no. 6735 of police station on
29.12.96. As per the information mentioned in General
Diary No., reached along with Head Constable Bharat
Pandey, Head Constable Pradeep Singh, Constable
Brij Mohan Singh with the summoned witnesses,
necessary materials Tarazu, baant, seal, shellac etc
to the spot at Platform no.1 of railway station, near
parcel office, near ver bridge. On the arrival of the
train, deputed accompanied force near to the coach
and train guard constable 405 Umashankar and 610
Rajendra Singh. Searched the suspect along with the
witnesses in the coach No. 91105 and on confirming
the features of the suspect before the witnesses and
in his sudden attempt to leave the coach, he was
stopped with the assistance of accompanying force.
He was summoned along with three cartoons he
possessed, out of the coach. Since, it will take time on
the confirmation of the information and the train stays
for the less time. The moment he came out with the
luggage out of the train, was asked name and address.
He told his name Rakesh son of Shankar Lal resident
of Sanwal Kheda, Tehsil and District Hoshangabad.
Subsequently also stated that at present he is living
in Chhola Naka House No.44, in the house of Kallu at
Bhopal and paying the rent of Rs 300/- per month. So,
he was informed that he is having the opium poppy
husk in three cartoons which he possessed and he is
smuggling to sell them. I have to take the search of
all three cartoons possessed by you. You could give
your search before Magistrate or Gazetted officer
or even could be . given before me. You could give
your search to anyone. On this, appearing Rakesh
gave his consent to give the search to me of which
the panchnama of the consent was prepared before
the witnesses. Rakesh took the body search of the
force accompanying me and the witnesses. Nothing
2012 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
suspected object could be found. Thereafter, the
search of the body of Rakesh was conducted. The
three cartoons were searched then opium poppy husk
was found which was smelt and tasted to witnesses
who revealed to be opium poppy husk. Then, after
this the panchnama of possessing the suspected
article, panchnama of being smelt and tasted and
panchnama of the measurement were prepared, it
was measured in parcel office which was carried
by Mithu Lal son of Satya Narayan, Begumpura. all
three cartoons and kept on the measurement scale
of parcel officer M.K.Jaiswal, measured the cartoons
measured 17 kg, 17 kg and 16 kg respectively making
a total of 50 kg of poppy husk, having the value of Rs
3500/- thus he was found possessing these articles
Illegally and on stating of not finding in written or
by any proof, the seizure memo was prepared. The
copy of the panchnama was made. Since I was not
having the seal with my name so the action done
at the place of occurrence was affixed with the seal
of police station. The samples from the packets of
the seized Opium poppy husk where article A - 1
A - 2 B - 1 B - 2 C - 1 and C-2 were marked and to
send them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination; a sample comprising of 250 grams each
were taken out from each of the cartoons. The criminal
case under section 8/15 of NDPS Act is found on the
aforesaid action made against Rakesh at the place
of occurrence. Due to this reason, panchnama was
prepared. Thus on panchnama of the action conducted
at the aforesaid place of occurrence and as per the
details of the seizure articles of the case along with
the accused Rakesh are being produced to police
station for further action. Please do the further action.
On the basis of the aforesaid written information
and the seizure made at the place of occurrence
and from other documents, a criminal case under
section 8/15 of NDPS Act is registered and took for
the investigation.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2013
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Action taken: Since the above report reveals
commission of offence(s) u/s 8/15 of NDPS Act----
Registered the case and took up the investigation or,
Directed/entrusted (Name of I.O.)-ASI Beg to take
up the investigation.
13. F.I.R. read over to complainant/informant,
admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given
to the complainant/informant, free of cost. ”
(ii) Thus it appears from the aforesaid that the appellant was
travelling on 29.12.1996 by Train No.1270, Bhopal Rajkot
Express. There was information with the Department that a
young boy was travelling with three packets of poppy husk
and was sitting in the general coach. The information was to
the extent that he was sitting near bath room alongwith three
cartons of poppy husk. It was also specified that he was sitting
on one of the packets containing contraband and the other two
were next to him. When the train, referred to above, arrived
at the platform, the raiding party identified the boy and asked
him to come out of the coach alongwith the three cartons. The
appellant herein disembarked the coach with three cartons. He
was searched and was found to be in conscious possession of
poppy husk weighing around 50 Kgs.
3. On FIR being registered the investigation commenced. At the end of
the investigation Police filed charge sheet in the Special Court. The
Special Court proceeded to frame charge for the offence enumerated
above to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. In the Course of the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses.
The prosecution also relied upon few pieces of documentary evidence.
5. Upon closure of the recording of the evidence by the prosecution the
further statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313
of the CrPC. In his further statement, he stated that he was falsely
implicated in the alleged offence. He further stated that he was travelling
with a valid ticket. He was to visit his relative residing in Maninagar
(Gujarat). He was detained at Ujjain Railway Police Station (M.P.).
6. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary
evidence on record held the appellant guilty of the alleged offence
2014 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant went in appeal before the High
Court. His appeal also came to be dismissed.
7. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before
this Court with the present appeal.
8. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
vehemently submitted that the Trial Court as well as the High Court
committed a serious error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence
under the NDPS Act. The principal argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that there is nothing on record to indicate that the
appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband. According
to the learned counsel, when the officers asked him to come out of
the coach with the three cartons he was left with no option but to
abide by the directions of the officers and that is how he got down
from the coach with the three cartons. According to the learned
counsel otherwise he had nothing to do with the three cartons. The
Learned counsel would submit that the search was carried out at a
public place like a railway platform. There were many passengers
in the train and the three cartons could have belonged to any one
of the passengers. In such circumstances, according to the learned
counsel the appellant deserves to be given a benefit of doubt.
9. Learned counsel prayed that there being merit in her appeal, the
same may be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge
enumerated above.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that no error not to speak of any
error of law could be said to have been committed by the two Courts
below in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged offence. He
would submit that there is cogent and reliable evidence on record to
indicate that the appellant was in conscious possession of the three
cartons containing poppy husk. He further pointed out that there was
a specific information which was reduced into writing in accordance
with law that a young boy was travelling in train referred to above
and had in his possession contraband in the form of poppy husk.
Accordingly, search was undertaken and the appellant was found
to be in possession. He would submit that there being no merit in
this appeal. The same may be dismissed.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2015
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is whether the Courts below committed
any error in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged offence.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to
a decision of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
reported in (2002) 7 SCC 419. Although the learned counsel seeks to
rely upon this judgment for the benefit of her client yet unfortunately
the ratio of the judgment or rather the dictum laid therein goes against
the appellant. The relevant observations are as under:
“The word ‘possession’ no doubt has different shades of
meaning and it is quite elastic in its connotation. Possession
and ownership need not always go together but the
minimum requisite element which has to be satisfied is
custody or control over the goods. Can it be said, on the
basis of the evidence available on record, that the three
appellants one of whom was driving the vehicle and
other two sitting on the bags, were having such custody
or control? It is difficult to reach such conclusion beyond
reasonable doubt. It transpires from evidence that the
appellants were not the only occupants of the vehicle. One
of the persons who was sitting in the cabin and another
person sitting at the back of the truck made themselves
scarce after seeing the police and the prosecution could
not establish their identity. It is quite probable that one of
them could be the custodian of goods whether or not he
was the proprietor. The persons who were merely sitting
on the bags, in the absence of proof of anything more,
cannot be presumed to be in possession of the goods. For
instance, if they are labourers engaged merely for loading
and unloading purposes and there is nothing to show
that the goods were at least in their temporary custody,
conviction under Section 15 may not be warranted. At best,
they may be abettors, but, there is no such charge here.
True, their silence and failure to explain the circumstances
in which they were traveling in the vehicle at the odd hours,
is one strong circumstance that can be put against them.
A case of drawing presumption under Section 114 of the
2016 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Evidence Act could perhaps be made out then to prove
the possession of the accused, but, the fact remains that
in the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C,
not even a question was asked that they were the persons
in possession of poppy husk placed in the vehicle. The
only question put to them was that as per the prosecution
evidence, they were sitting on the bags of poppy husk.
Strangely enough, even the driver was questioned on the
same lines. The object of examination under S. 313, it
is well known, is to afford an opportunity to the accused
to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him. It is unfortunate that no question was asked
about the possession of goods. Having regard to the
charge of which appellants were accused, the failure to
elicit their answer on such a crucial aspect as possession,
is quite significant. In this state of things, it is not proper
to raise a presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act
nor is it safe to conclude that the prosecution established
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in
possession of poppy husk which was being carried by
the vehicle. The High Court resorted to the presumption
under Section 35 which relates to culpable state of mind,
without considering the aspect of possession. The trial
court invoked the presumption under S. 54 of the Act
without addressing itself to the question of possession. The
approach of both the courts is erroneous in law. Both the
courts rested their conclusion on the fact that the accused
failed to give satisfactory explanation for travelling in the
vehicle containing poppy husk at an odd hour. But, the
other relevant aspects pointed out above were neither
adverted to nor taken into account by the trial court and
the High Court. Non-application of mind to the material
factors has thus vitiated the judgment under appeal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In Avtar Singh (supra), some of the occupants who were travelling
in the car on being intercepted were in a position to escape. In such
circumstances, the prosecution was unable to identify them during
the course of investigation. This Court observed that anyone of those
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2017
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
who made good their escape could be the actual custodian of the
contraband seized from the vehicle. This Court further observed that
the persons who were merely sitting on the bags, in the absence of
proof of anything more, cannot also be presumed to be in possession
of the contraband seized from the vehicle. Further, this Court held
that for failure of the Trial Court to examine the accused under
Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with respect to their possession which is
the main and foremost incriminating element to attract the offence
alleged against the accused, the prosecution could not have claimed
to have established the guilt of the accused under Section 15 of the
NDPs Act beyond the reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the
judgment of the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence
under Section 15 NDPS Act was reversed by this Court.
14. Thus, before the Court holds the accused guilty of the offence under
the NDPS Act, possession is something that the prosecution needs
to establish with cogent evidence. If the accused is found to be in
possession of any contraband which is a narcotic drug, it is for the
accused to account for such possession satisfactorily, if not, the
presumption under Section 54 comes into place.
15. Section 54 of the NDPS Act being relevant in the context on hand
is extracted hereunder for convenient reference:
“54. Presumption from possession of illicit articles.—In
trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until
the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed
an offence under this Act in respect of—
(a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or
controlled substance;
(b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing
on any land which he has cultivated;
(c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of
utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled
substance; or
(d) any materials which have undergone any process
towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance or controlled substance, or any residue
left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or
2018 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
psychotropic substance or controlled substance has
been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails
to account satisfactorily.”
16. Therefore, as envisaged by the provision itself, unless and until the
contrary is proved in trials of cases involving offences coming within
the purview of the NDPS Act, it may be presumed that the accused
has committed an offence under the Act in respect of any articles
prohibited to be possessed by him and for the possession of which,
he failed to account satisfactorily. Therefore, it is the burden of the
prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the
conscious possession of the accused. Only when that aspect has
been successfully proved by the prosecution, the onus will shift to
the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily.
17. We looked into the evidence as regards possession and are convinced
that the appellant was found to be in conscious possession of the
three cartons containing poppy husk. The defence put forward by the
appellant that he had no idea about the three cartons and that he
got down from the coach alongwith the three cartons only because
the officers asked him to come out of the coach is something which
is not palatable to us.
18. We have looked into the further statement of the accused. We do
not find any satisfactory reply or explanation as to how come he was
sitting on one of the cartons and the other two cartons were closely
placed next to him. 11
19. In such circumstances, Section 54 referred to above, comes into
play and the court would be justified in drawing the presumption
that the accused was in conscious possession.
20. Section 35 of the NDPS Act deals with the presumption of culpable
mental state. It states that in any prosecution under the NDPS Act,
the court shall presume that the accused had the requisite mental
state, including intention, knowledge, and motive, unless the accused
can prove otherwise. This shifts the burden of proof onto the accused
to demonstrate that they lacked knowledge or intent regarding the
possession of the drugs.
21. Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual
not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other
words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 2019
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
This concept has evolved primarily through judicial interpretation
since the term “conscious possession” is not explicitly defined
in the NDPS Act. This Court through various of its decisions
has repeatedly underscored that possession under the NDPS
Act should not only be physical but also conscious. Conscious
possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit
drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent
or knowledge of its illegal nature.
22. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat reported in
2000 (2) SCC 513, this Court highlighted that once the prosecution
proves physical possession, the burden shifts to the accused to
explain how he came into possession of the contraband and prove
that he was not aware of its presence or nature. The Court ruled
that a person who admits that drugs were found in his possession
must prove that he had no knowledge of the illicit nature of the
substance.
23. In Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2003) 7
SCC 465, this Court was dealing with a case where all the accused
persons were travelling in a vehicle when they were nabbed and
recoveries were made from them. The relevant extracts from the
said judgment are set out below:
“19. Whether there was conscious possession has to
be determined with reference to the factual backdrop.
The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on
record are that all the accused persons were travelling in
a vehicle and as noted by the trial court they were known
to each other and it has not been explained or shown as
to how they travelled together from the same destination
in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.
20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles
an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act
which relates to offences for possession of such articles.
It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit,
there must be a conscious possession.”
24. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court
committed no error in dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming
the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
2020 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
25. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
26. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender within a period of eight
weeks to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Nidhi Jain, Editor)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Conscious Possession"Sign in to search