Topic
Rajasthan High Court quashes charges under Section 25 NDPS Act, ruling mere ownership of premises does not establish liability without prima facie evidence of knowledge or permission for illegal activity. The judgment clarifies the prosecution's burden in premises-related NDPS cases.
Allahabad High Court sets a high bar for conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, requiring unequivocal proof that the accused knew their act was likely to cause death. The ruling acquits the appellant after 41 years, emphasizing that mere probability of death is insufficient without clear mens rea.
CESTAT rules that penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act cannot be imposed without concrete evidence of the appellant's knowledge or physical possession of illicit goods. The tribunal underscores that mere association with a supplier or failure to prove mens rea invalidates penalty imposition, reinforcing natural justice principles in customs enforcement.
The Karnataka High Court held that recovering narcotics from a vehicle parked near an accused’s property, without evidence the accused knew of or consented to its presence, cannot sustain a charge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. This reinforces that constructive possession requires active control or awareness, not just physical closeness - a critical safeguard for innocent property owners caught in drug enforcement dragnets.
CESTAT rules that penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be imposed without establishing the assessee's knowledge or reasonable belief of confiscation liability. The tribunal emphasized that show cause notices must explicitly allege mens rea, failing which penalties are unsustainable. This ruling reinforces due process protections for businesses dealing with excisable goods.
The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act cannot be imposed without proof of the owner's knowledge of vehicle use in smuggling.