Manoj Tejraj Jain v. State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 1090 - S.35 NDPS Act - Principle of Foundational Facts
NDPS Act - Section 35 - Unless the prosecution is able to prove foundational facts in the context of the allegations made against the accused under any specific provision of the NDPS Act as the case may be, the statutory presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 of the NDPS Act will not come into play- if the prosecution establishes such foundational facts and the presumption is raised against the accused, he can rebut the same either by discrediting prosecution’s case as improbable or absurd or the accused could lead evidence to prove his defence, in order to rebut the presumption, however the said presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act will be said to have been rebutted only where the accused by way of his defence establishes a fact contrary to the presumption and proves the same beyond a reasonable doubt.(Para 59-60) Rule or Principle of Foundational Facts - Before the statutory presumption of culpable mental state could be validly invoked, the prosecution must first establish certain foundational facts. These foundational facts typically involve or correspond to proving those facts or elements that cogently establish the actus reus required for the offence alleged by the prosecution. It is only after such foundational facts have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution may take recourse of the statutory presumption provided by the legislature. (Par 57)
NDPS Act - Section 9A -The essential requisite for the constitution of offence under Section 9A is the use of any controlled substance in the production or manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. (Para 37)
NDPS Act - Section 29 -the prosecution must prove that (i) there was abetment, (ii) there was conspiracy denoting that there was meeting of mind; between the owner and the other accused and common object and in pursuance of that common object an agreement took place to commit an offence (iii) some overt act was done in furtherance of such agreement. When the above elements are present in the form of evidence, the liability under Section 25A and/or Section 29 of the NDPS Act can be fastened on any person. The evidence means, the evidence in shape of police papers, as well as evidence recorded by the court during trial. (Para 40-41)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Manoj Tejraj Jain v. State of Gujarat (with connected appeals)
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1090
Coram (Judges)
- J.B. Pardiwala, J.
- K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: 28th August, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Mukesh Singh v. StateCitation: (2020) 10 SCC 120
- Noor Aga v. State of PunjabCitation: (2008) 16 SCC 417
- State of Punjab v. Baldev SinghCitation: (1999) 6 SCC 172
- Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.Citation: (1952) 1 SCC 275
- Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of GujaratCitation: (1992) 1 SCC 473
- Haricharan Kurmi v. State of BiharCitation: AIR 1964 SC 1184
- State of Tamil Nadu v. NaliniCitation: (1999) 5 SCC 253
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
- Section 9A: Power to control and regulate controlled substances
- Section 25A: Punishment for contravention of orders made under section 9A
- Section 29: Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy
- Section 35: Presumption of culpable mental state
- Section 54: Presumption from possession of illicit articles
- Section 67: (Mentioned in context of confessional statements)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 313: Power to examine the accused
- Section 428: Set-off of period of detention undergone by the accused against sentence of imprisonment
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 30: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 116: Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment—if offence be not committed
Q&A
1. What was the main subject of the appeals before the Supreme Court?
The appeals concerned the conviction of several individuals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), specifically relating to the seizure of ephedrine powder and allegations of conspiracy and contravention of controlled substance regulations.
2. Which sections of the NDPS Act were central to the case?
The case primarily involved Sections 9A (Power to control and regulate controlled substances), 25A (Punishment for contravention of orders made under section 9A), and 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.
3. What is Section 9A of the NDPS Act?
Section 9A empowers the Central Government to regulate or prohibit the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, trade, and commerce of controlled substances, including by means of licenses or permits.
4. What does Section 25A of the NDPS Act prescribe?
Section 25A provides punishment for contravention of orders made under Section 9A, with rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.
5. What is the significance of Section 29 of the NDPS Act in this case?
Section 29 deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit offences under the NDPS Act, making conspirators liable for the same punishment as the principal offence.
6. What is the role of Section 35 and Section 54 in NDPS cases?
Section 35 presumes the existence of a culpable mental state (mens rea) in prosecutions under the NDPS Act, while Section 54 allows presumption of commission of an offence from possession of illicit articles, unless the contrary is proved.
7. What foundational facts must the prosecution establish before statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 can be invoked?
The prosecution must first establish foundational facts, such as possession of contraband or involvement in the alleged offence, beyond reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused.
8. What was the outcome for the accused Narendra Kacha?
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Narendra Kacha but reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, noting he had served 8 years and 10 months out of a 10-year sentence.
9. What was the outcome for the other appellants?
The other appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were discharged.
10. What evidentiary issues were discussed regarding the prosecution witnesses?
Many independent witnesses (panchas) and other key witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. The Court relied on the oral evidence of ATS officials and other police witnesses.
11. Was the confessional statement of co-accused Narendra Kacha considered sufficient for conviction of others?
No, the Court noted that a confessional statement of a co-accused alone cannot be the basis for conviction; it must be supported by other legal evidence.
12. What principles regarding criminal conspiracy were reiterated by the Supreme Court?
The Court summarized that conspiracy requires agreement to commit an illegal act, and direct evidence is rare; it is usually inferred from circumstances and conduct. All conspirators need not join at the same time, and overt acts are not always necessary.
13. What was the Court’s view on the role of statutory presumptions in NDPS cases?
The Court emphasized that statutory presumptions (culpable mental state, possession) only operate after foundational facts are established by the prosecution.
14. What was the final order of the Supreme Court in this case?
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal of Narendra Kacha (sentence reduced to time served) and allowed the appeals of other appellants (acquitted), disposing of all pending applications.
#SupremeCourt on Principle of Foundational Facts: https://t.co/KRJzD25dFl pic.twitter.com/n8kgun6OeE
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) September 20, 2025