NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquits Taxi Driver in Contraband Case

NDPS Act: Supreme Court Acquits Taxi Driver in Contraband Case

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India acquitted a taxi driver implicated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The driver was accused of being involved in the possession of 20 kilograms of contraband ("ganza") found in his taxi, based solely on his inability to provide details about the passengers who fled the scene.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that it was unreasonable to expect a taxi driver to provide comprehensive information about passengers. The Court emphasized that taxi drivers typically do not collect such details before allowing passengers to board. It ruled that this inability could not be used as the sole basis for conviction under the NDPS Act.

Background

The case arose from an appeal filed against a Karnataka High Court decision, which had affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant and sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,00,000. The contraband was allegedly recovered from the appellant's taxi while he was ferrying two passengers who fled upon seeing the police.

Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court, while examining the facts, noted:

1. Absence of Direct Evidence: The contraband was seized from the taxi, not from the appellant’s person, and no other incriminating material was found linking the appellant to the contraband.
2. Conduct of the Appellant: The appellant did not attempt to flee from the scene, and the contraband was found in openly visible bags, suggesting the absence of any deliberate concealment or involvement.
3. Failure of Investigation: The investigative agencies made no effort to trace or identify the absconding passengers who could have provided crucial information.

"Considering the fact that no incriminating material was seized from the person of the appellant and that he had not made any effort to run away, moreover, the two bags from which the contraband was seized were not found to be hidden but were rather visible, we find no material on record to link the appellant-driver with the aforesaid contraband so as to prosecute and convict him for any offence under the NDPS Act.”, the court observed."

The Court held:

“It was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner before allowing the passenger to board the taxi asks for such details from the passenger(s).”

The Court further stated that the prosecution had failed to establish any link between the contraband and the appellant. As a result, the conviction lacked the requisite evidentiary foundation.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. It clarified that a taxi driver's role is limited to transportation and cannot inherently imply culpability for contraband carried by passengers unless corroborated by substantial evidence.

Appearance:

The case was argued by a team of advocates:

• For the Appellant: Mr. Manjunath Meled, Ms. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, and Mr. Anil Kumar.
• For the Respondents: Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, and others.

Case Citation

Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. The State of Karnataka, 2025 (SC) 64.