Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nilesh Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
1 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11535 of 2022
NILESH KUMAR JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Singh- learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Lucky
Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Jayesh Yadav - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 14.10.2025
Pronounced on : 13.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is
preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2022 in
SPL(NDPS) Case No.200041/2003 passed by Special Judge
appointed under Section 36(2) of NDPS Act, 1985 for Special Court,
Ratlam (M.P.) whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted
under Section 25 r/w Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and has
been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
with default stipulations of 1 year R.I.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
2 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
2. The appellant/accused Nilesh Kumar Jain was put to trial under
Section 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 regarding incident dated 25.09.2003
occurred at about 12:10 PM at Mahu – Neemuch Highway within the
territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Namli (M.P.) wherein, co-accused
Omprakash was found transporting the contraband (Poppy Straw) of
2560 Kg through Truck bearing Vehicle No. MP-09-K-6330 without
license and that truck was of the ownership of the appellant/accused
and appellant knowingly permitted the transportation of above
contraband and Crime No.222/2003 was registered at P.S. Namli,
Ratlam.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. To unravel the exactitude of occurrence, it is expedient to enter
into the facts of the case, which would surely navigate the path to
dispense justice. Suffice it to say that the Assistant Sub-Inspector R.D.
Pandey posted at police station Namli, district Ratlam (M.P.) received
secret information that a Mini Truck bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-
6330 is expected to reach at Mahu – Neemuch Highway containing
poppy straw. A.S.I. R.P. Pandey recorded the information at
Rojnamchasana No.1221 on 25.09.2003. Due to paucity of time, it
was not possible to obtain a search warrant and, accordingly, a
panchnama (Ex.P-7) was prepared at 12:45 of 25.09.2003. About
13.15 PM of 25.09.2003, a truck Vehicle No. MP-09-K-6330 coming
from Jaora was intercepted and panchnama (Ex.P-8) was prepared.
The person who was driving the vehicle was Omprakash s/o Babulal,
aged about 24 years r/o Daloda behind Shiv Temple. He was informed
about the contraband in truck and for this purpose, the requirement of
search of the vehicle and he was given an option of search either
before Magistrate or A.S.I R.P. Pandey. Driver Omprakash
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
3 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
communicated the consent of search to be taken by R.P. Pandey and a
panchnama (Ex.P-9) was prepared. At 13:20 PM on 25.09.2003, ASI
R.D. Pandey gave his search to Omprakash and nothing incriminating
was found and for that, panchnama (Ex.P-10) was prepared. Body of
Omprakash was searched and nothing incriminated was found and
panchnama (Ex.P-11) was prepared.
4. Thereafter, search of truck bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330
was conducted and (Ex.P-12) was prepared. In the said truck jute bags
were opened and poppy straw were found in the truck and panchnama
(Ex.P-13) was prepared. A panchnama (Ex.P-14) was prepared
regarding the accuracy of weight machine brought from the Namli. A
total 64 bags were found in the truck Vehicle bearing No.MP-09-K-
6330 in which 48 bags were of jute and 16 bags were of plastic and
each containing 41-41 kg of poppy straw. From each bag a 50-50 gms
samples were taken for chemical examination and bags were marked
as A-1 and A-2 to BL-1 to BL-2 and panchanama (Ex.P-15) was
prepared. Panchnama (Ex.P-16 to P-19) were also prepared regarding
seizure of blue tarpaulin and rope. The arrest memo of Omprakash
(Ex.P-19) was prepared and the First Information Report (Ex.P-30)
under Section 08/15 of NDPS Act, 1985 was lodged against
Omprakash as Crime No.222/03. The matter was investigated and the
samples were forwarded to chemical examination and vide report
(Ex.P-33) the material was found as poppy straw powder by Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL).
5. During the investigation the memorandum of information of
Omprakash was prepared on 25.09.2003 and 30.09.2003 and the
complicity of Munnawar s/o Fateh Khan was disclosed. Munnawar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
4 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
could not be apprehended and a charge-sheet was submitted on
22.11.2003 in the Court of Special NDPS Act, Ratlam against
Omprakash and declaring the Munnawar as absconding. During the
proceedings, an application on behalf of the wife of Munnawar Khan
i.e. Ayesh Bi was preferred on 17.03.2005 for requesting the
examination of handwriting regarding the sale of truck by Munnawar
Khan. The application was rejected on 13.07.2005. P.S. Namli was
permitted to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of
Cr.P.C. vide order dated 04.08.2006, on an application dated
27.07.2006. On 09.01.2007, a supplementary charge-sheet was
submitted against the Nilesh Kumar Jain mentioning Nilesh as
absconding.
6. Nilesh Kumar Jain was found absconded and vide order dated
01.08.2007 a perpetual warrant was issued. The trial was continued
only against the Omprakash as the Munnawar and Nilesh were
declared absconding. Nilesh Jain was arrested in connection with
Crime No.21/03 registered at P.S. Bhavgarh, Mandsaur under Section
420 of the IPC and Section 24 of the M.P. Ayurvigyan Parisar
Adhiniyam, 1987. Vide judgment dated 04.10.2008, Omprakash was
convicted under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and was sentenced
to 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulations.
7. Vide order dated 19.02.2008, present appellant Nilesh Jain was
discharged. The order of discharge was challenged in the High Court
through CRR No.615/2008 and vide judgment dated 24.03.2009, the
order of discharge was set aside and the matter was remitted back to
the trial Court for framing of charge under Section 25 of the NDPS
Act, 1985.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
5 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
8. In compliance of order dated 24.03.2009, the proceedings of the
Special Case No. 41/03 were restored and vide order dated
25.03.2009, the charges were framed against the present appellant.
9. An application was preferred by Munnawar under Section 169
r/w Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and same was not pressed vide order
dated 27.06.2011. Vide order dated 19.02.2013 in MCRC
No.8485/2012, it was directed that if application under Section 169 of
the Cr.P.C is filed by the prosecution then the trial Court have to
consider itself under proper perspective. Vide order dated 15.11.2018,
application preferred by Munnawar on 19.05.2015 under Section 239
of the Cr.P.C. and an application preferred under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C. on 02.03.2013 and application under Section 169 of the
Cr.P.C. preferred by In-charge Police Station Namli on 22.06.2013
were disposed of vide order dated 15.11.2018. Applications under
Sections 169 and 239 of the Cr.P.C. were allowed and Munnawar was
discharged and the proceedings were continued against the present
appellant/accused Nilesh Kumar Jain.
10. To bring home the guilt, the present appellant examined total 11
witnesses namely Ayesh Bi (PW-1), Lalsingh (PW-2), Krishnasingh
Rajguru (PW-3), Prakash Rao (PW-4), Ramakant Rawal (PW-5),
Rajkishore Mishra (PW-6), Kailash (PW-7), Munnawar Khan (PW-8),
Ramdulare Pandey (PW-9), Kaushalyabai (PW-10) and Rajaram
Patidar (PW-11) and relied on the documents [Ex.P-1 to P-47].
11. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 appellant/
accused Nilesh Jain expressed to ignorance and facts and
circumstances appeared against him or expressed ignorance except the
fact that Munnawar Khan has borrowed One Lac Rupees from Nilesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
6 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
Jain and his father Surendra Jain and have mortgaged his 5 bigha
agricultural land situated at Village Nimbakhedi, Mandsaur present
Tehsil Daloda, Mandsaur by executing agreement and handed over ten
blank cheques of Central Bank of India, Branch Daloda to Nilesh Jain
and Surendra Jain and the fact that Ayesh Bi (PW-1) is the wife of
Munnawar Khan and Kaushalyabai mother of Omprakash is familiar
with Nilesh Jain. He took the defence of false implication and
examined Anil Kumar Bhandari partner of Sudarshan Automobiles,
Daloda as (DW-1) and Sarabjeetsingh Tuteja, a property dealer and
son of handwriting expert as (DW-2) and adduced the documents
(Ex.D-1 to D-7) in his defence.
12. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Court found proved that
Munnawar Khan sold his vehicle bearing Registration No.MP-09-K-
6330 to Nilesh Jain on 08.08.2003 and also handed over the
possession and the truck was in the ownership, possession and control
of Nilesh Kumar Jain on 25.09.2003 and knowingly permitted to use
the aforesaid truck to transport the 2560 Kg poppy straw contained in
64 bags without permission and aforesaid truck was found at 12:10
PM of 25.09.2003 at Mahu – Neemuch Highway within the territorial
jurisdiction of P.S. Namli, Mandsaur transporting the aforesaid poppy
straw by Omprakash and for that convicted and sentence the
appellant/accused as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.
SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT’S COUNSEL
13. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal
has been preferred on the ground that Munnawar Khan (PW-8) is the
registered owner of the truck and merely on the basis of the forged
agreement; presumption cannot be drawn against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
7 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
appellant/accused. The trial Court ignored the para 6 and 7 of the
statement of Ayesha Bi (PW-1)/ wife of Munnawar Khan that the
signatories on the so-called agreement are their close relatives.
Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court ignored the
paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Lalsingh (PW-10) regarding close
relationship with Munnawar Khan and committed error in relying
upon those interested witnesses.
14. Similarly, the trial Court ignored the para 9 to 15 of
Krishnasingh (PW-3) who has stated that the appellant did not put his
signature on the so-called agreement. The trial Court ignored the fact
that (PW-4) is also an interested witness and he filed an affidavit that
he does not know the appellant. The trial Court committed error in
relying the testimony that Munnawar (PW-8) is a person against
whom; convicted accused Omprakash has disclosed that he was acting
on the direction of Munnawar Khan, therefore, he was involved in the
aforesaid offence and supplementary challan was filed against him. In
difference circumstances, he was discharged on 15.11.2018 before
recording his evidence behind the back of the appellant.
15. In the charge-sheet, name of Munnawar Khan (PW-8) was not
impleaded as witness; accordingly, he could not be examined as a
witness on the behalf of the prosecution and trial Court committed
error in placing the reliance on the statement of Munnawar. Trial
Court committed error in not relying the testimony of Anil Kumar
Bhandari examined as (DW-1) and Sarabjeetsingh Tuteja examined as
(DW-2) whose testimony demonstrates that on the date of incident
Munnawar was in possession of the aforesaid truck in question and
the signature is not present on the so-called agreement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
8 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
16. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court
committed error in applying the Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985
recording the finding that Section 25 applies only when the owner or
occupier having the control or use of any conveyance, knowingly
permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an
offence, then the section would be attracted. There is absolutely
nothing on record to implicate the appellant from the offence alleged
to have been committed by the appellant. The judgment and order of
conviction is based on surmises and cannot be allowed to sustain.
JUDGMENTS CITED BY APPELLANT’S COUNSEL
17. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the appellant
placed reliance on the judgments passed by Apex Court in the case of
Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2023 SC
2179, Gangadhar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2020
SC 3656, Balwinder Singh & Ors. Vs Asstt. Commissioner, Customs
& Central Excise reported in AIR 2005 SC 2917 and further in the
cases of Bhola Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC
653, Nicholas John Fernandes & Ors. Vs. State of M.H. & Ors.,
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2980 and Sharvan Kumar vs. State of
Rajasthan, 2012 Cri. L.J. 1480.
Heard.
18. Counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned
judgment and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
Perused the record.
APPRECIATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
9 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
19. To consider the grounds raised in appeal, it becomes germane
to notice Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. For ready reference,
Section 25 of the Act is reproduced below:-
―25. Punishment for allowing premises etc., to be used for
commission of an offence. Whoever, being the owner or occupier
or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space,
place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for
the commission by any other person of an offence punishable
under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the
punishment provided for that offence”.
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The above section deals with punishment for allowing the
vehicle to be used for commission of offence. It observes that
whoever, being the owner or occupier or having control or use of
conveyance knowingly permits it to be used for commission of
offence would become punishable. Interpretation of Section 25 need
not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
21. The Apex Court in the case of Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 653, has held as follows:-
5. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court and the High
Court insofar as Bhola Singh is concerned. We see that he was not
present at the spot and the allegation against him is that he was the
co-owner of the truck and that while purchasing the truck he had
given his residential address in Rajasthan whereas he was a resident
of Haryana. The High Court has accordingly drawn a presumption
under Section 35 of the Act against him to hold that by giving a fake
address his culpability was writ large on the facts of the case.
6. Mr T.N. Razdan, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised
only one argument before us during the course of the hearing. He has
pointed out that there was no evidence that the appellant had been
involved in the smuggling of contraband and even if the prosecution
story that he was the co-owner of the truck and had given a wrong
address while purchasing the truck was correct, these factors could
not fasten him with any liability under Sections 15 and 25 of the Act.
He has also submitted that the “culpable mental state” and the
conditions for the applicability of Section 35 of the Act were not made
out.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
10 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
7. Mr Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel for the State of Punjab, has
however supported the judgment of the trial court. We, however,
repeatedly asked the learned counsel as to whether there was any
evidence as to the involvement of the appellant, other than that he was
the co-owner of the truck and that he had given a wrong address. The
learned counsel fairly stated that there was no other evidence against
the appellant.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel. We see that Section 25 of the Act would not be applicable in
the present case as there is no evidence to indicate that Bhola Singh,
the appellant had either knowingly permitted the use of the vehicle for
any improper purpose. The sine qua non for the applicability of
Section 25 of the Act is thus not made out.
9. The High Court has however drawn a presumption against the
appellant under Section 35 of the Act. This provision is reproduced
below:
―35.Presumption of culpable mental state.–(1) In any
prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a
culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall
presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a
defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no
such mental state with respect to the act charged as an
offence in that prosecution.
Explanation.–In this section ‗culpable mental state’
includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief
in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be
proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a
reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is
established by a preponderance of probability.‖
10. While dealing with the question of possession in terms of Section
54 of the Act and the presumption raised under Section 35, this Court
in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 748] while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 35
observed that as this section imposed a heavy reverse burden on an
accused, the condition for the applicability of this and other related
sections would have to be spelt out on facts and it was only after the
prosecution had discharged the initial burden to prove the
foundational facts that Section 35 would come into play.
11. Applying the facts of the present case to the cited one, it is
apparent that the initial burden to prove that the appellant had the
knowledge that the vehicle he owned was being used for transporting
narcotics still lay on the prosecution, as would be clear from the word
“knowingly”, and it was only after the evidence proved beyond
reasonable doubt that he had the knowledge would the presumption
under Section 35 arise. Section 35 also presupposes that the culpable
mental state of an accused has to be proved as a fact beyond
reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a
preponderance of probabilities. We are of the opinion that in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
11 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
absence of any evidence with regard to the mental state of the
appellant no presumption under Section 35 can be drawn. The only
evidence which the prosecution seeks to rely on is the appellant’s
conduct in giving his residential address in Rajasthan although he was
a resident of Fatehabad in Haryana while registering the offending
truck cannot by any stretch of imagination fasten him with the
knowledge of its misuse by the driver and others.
12. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the
courts below and order the appellant’s acquittal. His bail bonds shall
stand discharged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
22. The Apex Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh vs. State of
Haryana reported in 2023 INSC 424, has scrutinized the application
of section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and underscored that ownership
alone does not sufficient for criminal liability under the NDPS Act,
1985 unless gives incontrovertible evidence of ownership, knowledge
and consent. The Apex Court emphasized that the term ―knowingly
permits‖ necessitates clear evidence that the vehicle owner was aware
of and consented to its used for any unlawful activity.
23. In the present case, neither the appellant accused was with the
truck bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330 when it was intercepted by
Ass. Sub Inspector R.D. Pandey (PW-9) on 25.09.2003 in front of P.S.
Namli, District Ratlam, nor he was arrested from the spot when the
truck and contraband were taken into custody. Even he was not the
registered owner of the vehicle. His name was also not disclosed by
the driver Omprakash. The statement of driver Omprakash recorded
on 25.09.2003 and 30.09.2003 at P.S. Namli, did not state anything
about present appellant Nilesh Jain and on the contrary, the
involvement of Munawwar Khan (PW-8) was disclosed.
24. The allegations against the present appellant for the first time
came into picture on the application dated 18.07.2006 (Ex.P-1) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
12 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
Ayesha Bi (PW-1) wife of Munawwar Khan in which she stated that
the aforesaid truck was sold by her husband to Nilesh on 08.08.2003
and the truck was in ownership and possession of Nilesh Jain. As per
para 13 of Rajaram Patidar (PW-11) the investigations against present
appellant Nilesh Jain was initiated on the application (Ex.P-1) of
Ayesha Bi on the directions of S.P., Ratlam. Munawwar Khan (PW-8)
has stated in para 19 of his statement that Nilesh Jain runs a
Vinaydeep Nursing Home at Dalauda Crossing and he visits at his
another hospital. In para 19, Munawwar has mentioned that Nilesh
Jain established a school also and his father Surendra Jain is also a
doctor by profession.
25. Present appellant has been convicted recording the finding that
Munawwar Khan (PW-8) had taken a loan of Rupees One Lac from
the father of present appellant and executed the unregistered mortgage
through agreement of agricultural land bearing Survey No.226 area
0.02 hectare, Survey No.251 area 0.48 hectare, Survey No.248 area
0.11 hectare, Survey No.245 area 0.08 hectare and Survey No.391 are
0.24 hectare total area 0.93 hectare situated at village Nimbakhedi,
District Mandsaur and appellant accused Nilesh Jain pressurized to
return the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- then he handed over the
custody of his Eicher Truck bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330 on
08.08.2003 by executing an agreement (Ex.P-3) at Mandsaur for a
consideration of RS.2,55,000/- and the amount of One Lac Rupees
was adjusted and the rest amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was to be paid by
the present appellant to Munawwar within two months i.e., upto
08.10.2003 and the truck vehicle had to be transferred to present
appellant in the Regional Transport Office. Thereafter, the said
agreement was notarized on 14.08.2003 at Sitamau and thus the truck
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
13 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
vehicle was in the ownership, possession and control of the present
appellant on 25.09.2003 and he consented Omprakash to transport the
contraband.
26. Section 25 creates a vicarious liability against the person who is
the owner who has knowingly permitted usage of vehicle, knowledge
pervades the provision of law.
27. The findings of the trial Court is based on the premise that the
registered owner of the vehicle namely Munawwar Khan (PW-8) has
parted with the truck vehicle by executing (Ex.P-3) in favor of Nilesh
Jain. Rajaram Patidar (PW-17), P.S. In-charge P.S. Namli found that
Omprakash was the driver of Nilesh on the statement of
Kaushaliyabai and Babulal. Kaushaliyabai (PW-10) is the mother of
Omprakash whose statement (Ex.P-42) for the first time was recorded
by the Investigating Officer on 24.01.2008. This witness examined as
(PW-10) has stated that Nilesh Jain came to their home and asked her
son that a loaded truck bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330 is parked
and you have to drive the vehicle and thereafter his son Omprakash
driven the vehicle of Nilesh Jain. The statements of this witness came
to picture after four and a half years of the incident despite the fact
that her son was taken into custody on 25.09.2003 and she did not
disclose anything, even Omprakash has not mentioned earlier
anything about the involvement of Nilesh Jain when he was
intercepted. Accordingly, Kaushaliyabai does not seem truthful. The
above findings have to be tested whether Nilesh Jain was actually in
possession or control of the vehicle on the strength of (Ex.P-3) so that
knowledge can be attributed to Nilesh Jain and presumption under
Section 35 of the Act can be raised against Nilesh Jain. For this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
14 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
purpose, Court is reproducing para 20 of the statement of Munawwar
Khan (PW-8) as verbatim.
‗’20. सुदर्शन ऑटो मोबाईल्सo के मालऱक को जानता हॉ । स्व2त: कहा कक वह
नीऱेर् जैन के ररश्तेaदार है । यह कहना सही है कक मैंने कदनाॊक
07.09.2023 को सुदर्शन ऑटो मोबाईल्सह से अपने ट्रक में डीजऱ भरवाया
था। किर कहा कक कदनाॊक 07.09.2023 को डीजन नहीॊ भरवाया था , उसके
पहऱे भरवाया था। दस्ता वेज प्र.डी.05 व प्र.डी.06 के ए से ए भाग पर बने
हुये हस्ताााऺर मेरे हैं । किर कहा कक उक्त. हस्ताडऺर मेरे नहीॊ ‗’है ।
28. Ex.D-5 and Ex.D-6 as proved by Anil Kumar Bhandari (DW-1),
the owner-cum-partner of Sudarshan Auto Mobiles is the credit memo
dated 27.08.2003 regarding sale of diesel for truck bearing Vehicle
No.MP-09-K-6330 bearing signature of Munawwar Khan (PW-8) and
the credit memo dated 07.09.2003 regarding sale of diesel for truck
bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330 bearing the signature of
Munawwar Khan (PW-8).
29. Para 20 of Munawwar (PW-8) as mentioned hererinabove,
accepts at the first instance that he filled the diesel in the truck bearing
Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330 on 07.09.2003 and also filled the diesel on
27.08.2003, though he tries to avoid this admission but his evasive
statements does not have the effect of retracting his admissions.
30. Considering the above evidence in the facts and circumstances
that the appellant accused was in the profession of Nursing Home
with his father and also in the business of School and hospital and
(Ex.P-3) was executed only to secure the repayment of the money
advanced by his father just 1 and ½ months prior to the seizure of
truck bearing Vehicle No.MP-09-K-6330 and in the intervening
period, the fuel in the truck was being filled by Munawwar Khan/
registered owner, then the evidence on record does not fall within the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 4650
15 CRA. No. 11535 of 2022
category of incontrovertible evidence regarding actual possession or
control of the vehicle with the present appellant Nilesh Jain and
merely on the strength of (Ex.P-3), the foundational facts to raise the
presumptions under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are not proved.
Hence, the presumptions under Section 35 are not attracted in the light
of Bhola Singh (Supra) and Harbhajan Singh (Supra), accordingly, the
conviction of the appellant accused under Section 25 r/w Section
15(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 cannot legally be sustained.
31. For the aforementioned reasons, the present criminal appeal is
allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under
Section 25 r/w Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 vide judgment
dated 30.11.2022 is set aside. The appellant be released forthwith, if
not required in jail in any other case.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 13-02-2026
20:35:44