Karnataka HC quashes NDPS case against owner of E-City resort raided for rave party

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed a case filed under the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act against the owner of a farmhouse near Electronics City where an illegal rave party was allegedly held more than three months ago. 

Under the NDPS Act, there should be more than prima facie material to hold that the owner or occupier of the premises was in complete knowledge of what was happening there, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted. 

R Gopal Reddy, a resident of BTM Layout, owns a property in Hebbagodi under the Electronics City police station limits.

On May 19, 2024, the Central Crime Branch (CCB) searched this property where a birthday party under the banner ‘Vasu’s birthday–Sunset to Sunrise Victory’ was organised.

Police reportedly seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances such as MDMA pills, cocaine and hydro-ganja. Most of those present at the party tested positive for drugs. The police named the owner as one of the accused. 

In his petition in the high court, Reddy claimed that the property in question is being manned by the manager and that he was not even aware as to what purpose it was used for. It was also submitted that an event management company, named 'Victory', had booked the property for the event of a person named Vasu. 

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that according to Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the owner or occupier would become punishable when he/she knowingly permits it to be used for commission of the offence.

The court cited the judgments of the Supreme Court and other high courts, which on interpretation of Section 25 of the Act, clearly held that knowledge is conscious knowledge. 

"... the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Singh and Harbhajan Singh would clearly cover the issue on all fours, as the petitioner, even according to the search party, did not know what was happening in the premises, as it is at the time of investigation, preliminary though, reveals that the petitioner who sits elsewhere did not know for what purpose the premises was taken for rent on the said date.

"Therefore, it would be unjust to permit to be tried under Section 25 of the Act, on the score that Section 35 of the Act raises a presumption against the petitioner,” the court said.