Supreme Court of India

Noor Aga v State of Punjab

(2008) 16 SCC 41720081 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of heroin found at an airport. The prosecution relied on the presumptions in S.35 and S.54 of the Act.
Issue
Whether reverse burden provisions in the NDPS Act are constitutional, and how they operate.
Held
Presumption of innocence is a human right. Reverse burden provisions are valid, but only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as conscious possession, beyond reasonable doubt; the accused then needs to rebut only on a preponderance of probabilities. Because the recovery and the samples were not properly proved, the accused was acquitted.
Principle
Reverse burdens apply only after the prosecution strictly proves the foundational facts.
Cite this

Facts

  • The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of heroin found at an airport. The prosecution relied on the presumptions in S.35 and S.54 of the Act.

Issue

  1. Whether reverse burden provisions in the NDPS Act are constitutional, and how they operate.

Held

  • Presumption of innocence is a human right. Reverse burden provisions are valid, but only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, such as conscious possession, beyond reasonable doubt; the accused then needs to rebut only on a preponderance of probabilities. Because the recovery and the samples were not properly proved, the accused was acquitted.

Cite this

Citation

Noor Aga v State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1584447/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.