A Critical Analysis of Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

1.1 Introduction to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is one of India’s most stringent penal statutes, significantly departing from traditional criminal law principles by incorporating statutory presumptions of guilt and placing a reverse burden of proof on the accused. While enacted to effectively combat the growing menace of drug trafficking and abuse, the Act’s framework has consistently invited judicial scrutiny to ensure conformity with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

Central to this judicial balancing exercise is the doctrine of “conscious possession”, a judge-made concept that operates as the threshold for invoking presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act and safeguards individuals from being penalised merely for physical presence to contraband. In case Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State ofMadhya Pradesh (2025) INSC 96, the Supreme Court revisited and acknowledged this doctrine, holding that possession under the NDPS Act must entail not only physical control but also mental awareness of the illegal substance. This judgment is significant as it consolidates existing jurisprudence on conscious possession while clarifying the conditions under which statutory presumptions may constitutionally be applied, thereby contributing meaningfully to the evolving NDPS jurisprudence.

1.2 What is Conscious Possession?

A scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness.

1.3 Factual Background of the Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi Case

The case arose from an incident dated 29 Dec’1996, when officials of the Government Railway Police, Ujjain, received specific secret information that a young man was travelling in the Bhopal-Rajkot Express carrying narcotic contraband in the form of “opium poppy husk.” The information disclosed that the suspect was seated in the general coach near the bathroom area, in possession of three cartons, and was sitting on one of them. The information was duly reduced into writing and communicated to senior officers in compliance with the requirements of the NDPS Act.

Acting on the information, a raiding party intercepted the train at Ujjain Railway Station. Upon identification, the suspect, later identified as Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi, was asked to alight from the train along with the three cartons accompanying him. A search was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses after obtaining the accused’s consent. On examination, the cartons were found to contain poppy husk weighing approximately 50 kilograms in total, which falls within the category of a narcotic substance under the NDPS Act. Samples were drawn, sealed, and seized in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and an FIR was registered under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses and relied on documentary evidence to establish seizure, compliance with statutory safeguards, and possession of the contraband by the accused. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied ownership or knowledge of the cartons and claimed false implication, stating that he was merely travelling to visit a relative and had carried the cartons out of the coach only on the instructions of the police officials.

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, held the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,00,000. The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the accused approached the Supreme Court of India, primarily contending that the prosecution had failed to establish that he was in conscious possession of the seized contraband.

1.4 Presumption of culpable mental state and conscious possession

Presumption of Innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence which self-evidently displays that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession.

In Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (20030) it is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted. This fundamental principle is underpinned by the maxim “semper necessitas probandi incumbitei qui agit”: the necessity of proof lies with the person who levels the charges.

Section 35 of the NDPS Act, deals with presumption of culpable mental state of an accused requiring the Court to presume the existence of such mental state for a prosecution under the Act. Furthermore, an explanation is provided in the provision which states-

1.5 Judicial Application of the Doctrine of Conscious Possession: The Aryan Khan Case

The term ‘conscious possession’ has not been explicitly mentioned in NDPS Act keeping it apart from the term ‘possession’, but various judicial enactments from the Supreme Court and High Courts have evolved the term ‘conscious possession’ according to the needs and circumstances of the respective case.

In October 2021, a special court in Mumbai denied bail to Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, even though the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) did not find any drugs on him during his arrest on October 3 after a raid on a cruise ship off Mumbai. The arrest of Aryan, along with several others, has highlighted the stiff nature of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and the nuances that go into the detection and seizure of narcotics, and how the matter is investigated and prosecuted.

The court rejected his bail application on the ground that he had “conscious possession” of drugs. He has been accused under the same sections of the NDPS Act as his friend Arbaaz Merchant and model Munmun Dhamecha, on whom six grams and five grams of hashish, respectively, were allegedly found.

1.6 Arguments Presented in the Case

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant contended that the courts below erred in holding him guilty under the NDPS Act, as the essential ingredient of conscious possession was not established. It was argued that the alleged recovery took place in a public place, that is in a railway coach, which was accessible to several passengers, and therefore mere proximity to the cartons could not conclusively establish possession. The appellant maintained that he was not the owner of the cartons and had no knowledge of their contents.

It was further submitted that the appellant had carried the cartons out of the train only upon the directions of the police officials, leaving him with no other choice in the matter.

Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC 513: This Court highlighted that once the prosecution proves physical possession, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how he came into possession of the contraband and prove that he was not aware of its presence or nature. The Court ruled that a person who admits that drugs were found in his possession must prove that he had no knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.

Respondent Arguments

The respondent State submitted that the conviction was based on cogent and reliable evidence, and that no error of law had been committed by the Trial Court or the High Court. It was argued that the recovery was not just a chance seizure but was made pursuant to specific prior information, which was duly recorded and acted upon in accordance with law. The accused was not merely present near the contraband but was found sitting on one carton with the remaining cartons placed immediately beside him, clearly indicating control and dominion over the seized substance.

Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 7 SCC 419: The appellant attempted to rely on a decision to argue that mere physical presence near contraband is insufficient to establish “possession.” However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the ratio of Avtar Singh actually disfavours the appellant because it underscores the importance of “possession” requiring custody or control over the contraband. If the prosecution proves that the accused was in conscious possession, the presumption arises, and a corresponding burden shifts to the accused to disprove his knowledge of the contraband.

1.8 Reversal of Burden of Proof in Narcotics Offences

1. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable state of mind of the accused, the Court shall presume this shifts the burden of proof onto the accused to demonstrate that they lacked knowledge or intent regarding the possession of the drugs. In this section, the culpable state of mind includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
2. For Section 35 of NDPS Act, 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 possibility.

Thus, we can infer that conscious possession means a mental state of possession that is bound to be considered along with physical possession of the illicit material. Just like in criminal law, ‘Actus Reus’ and ‘Mens Rea’ are two essential ingredients to constitute a criminal offense, the same goes for the NDPS Act where physical, as well as mental possession of drugs, are essential elements to constitute an offense under the same law.

1.9 Doctrinal and Constitutional Analysis of the Judgment

The decision in case reinforces the Supreme Court’s efforts to strike a constitutional balance between the NDPS Act’s rigid enforcement framework and the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. By summarising that statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 gives arise only after the prosecution establishes conscious possession, the Court safeguards against the mechanical application of the reverse burden provisions.

At the same time, the Court’s fact-based inference of conscious possession invites critical scrutiny. While the accused’s proximity to the cartons and his act of sitting on one of them were treated as decisive indicators of control and awareness, the judgment leaves open the question of how far such circumstantial indicators can be stretched in less clear-cut situations.

Nevertheless, the judgment broadensthe contribution which lies in its justification that reverse burden statutes cannot operate in isolation from constitutional safeguards. By emphasizing that presumptions must follow the establishment of conscious possession and the Court strengthens procedural fairness within NDPS prosecutions. The ruling therefore serves as a reminder that even in cases involving serious narcotic offences; the criminal justice system must remain preserved in principles of fairness, proportionality, and reasoned adjudication.

1.10 Concluding Observation

The principle of innocent until proven guilty is a cardinal rule of criminal justice administration. An accused is presumed to be innocent and it is the burden of the prosecution to prove any wrongdoing beyond any reasonable doubt. However, an offence relating to narcotic drugs is a grave offence which adversely affects the social fabric of the society. It is a necessary evil that the criminals involved in grave offences are not allowed to take advantages of the law and benefit from the provision meant for innocents. However, it also has to be ensured that an innocent is protected from some adverse interpretations of the law. The rule of conscious possession thus provides a balance between strict enforcement of law on one hand and protecting the rights of the accused on the other.