Mere Ownership Does Not Attract NDPS Section 25 Without Proof of Knowing Permission.

The Excise Department registered a case after receiving information that a ganja plant was growing in the backyard of a brick factory owned by the petitioner.

During a raid, officers seized a single plant.

Two factory workers, arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2, stated that they had grown it for their personal consumption; their statements did not indicate that the petitioner knew of the planting.

The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner, as owner, knew of the plant, and he was arraigned as accused No. 3 for offences under Sections 20(a), 25, 46, 60 and 8(b) of the NDPS Act.

The Special Judge took cognizance in Spl.C.No.361/2023.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the charge-sheet material disclosed that the petitioner knowingly permitted his premises to be used for an NDPS Act offence, so as to attract Section 25 of the Act.

Whether, in the absence of material connecting the petitioner to the workers’ conduct, continuation of the proceedings against him amounted to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 25 of the NDPS Act applies where an owner, occupier, or person having control or use of premises knowingly permits another person to use them to commit an offence under the Act; knowledge is an essential ingredient.

Mere recovery of a ganja plant from premises, without material showing the owner’s knowledge, is insufficient to attract Section 25.

The Court also applied the principle that criminal liability is not vicarious absent a legal basis for imposing it, and exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process.

The seized plant was found in the factory backyard, but the workers’ statements attributed the planting to themselves and stated that it was for personal consumption; they did not implicate the petitioner or indicate his knowledge.

The Court held that ownership of the premises and recovery of the plant, without supporting evidence of knowing permission, did not satisfy Section 25.

Nor could the petitioner be held vicariously liable for the workers’ alleged acts.

Taking the charge-sheet material at face value, the Court found no basis to continue the proceedings against him.

It expressly directed that proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 2 continue.