Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 · Chapter IV: Offences and Penalties
Section 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.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 35
-
Manoj Tejraj Jain v. State of Gujarat
Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby the appeals filed by the appellants herein were dismissed against the judgment of the trial court convicting them for offences u/ss.25A and 29, Narcotic Drugs and…
-
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the judgment of the trial court, thereby upholding the appellant guilty of conscious possession of poppy husk.
- Rajinder Kumar v. Ncb
- Mohd.Altaf v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Syed Abu Ala v. Ncb
-
Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.
What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO); what is the underlying distinction between sub-section(s) (1), (2) and (3) respectively of the POCSO; whether, mere…
-
Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. The State of Assam & Ors.
The Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari declared the appellant to be a foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
- Bharat Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
-
Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. The Narcotics
Matter pertains to admissibility in evidence of the confessional statement recorded by the Narcotics Control Bure au officers u/s. 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and proving of possession of…
- Sarvothaman Guhan @Sarvo v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Vishal Singh v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Dixita Golwala v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Bhaskar Khatnani v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Gauri Shankar Jaiswal v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Quentin Decon v. Customs
- Masibur Khan v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
- Deep Chand Kumar v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Shankar Kumar Sinha v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Ashish Mittal v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
- Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana
- Galiv Hussain v. State Gnct of Delhi
- Abdul Hamid Turkman v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
- Mohanlal v. The State of Punjab
- Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana
- Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan
- Gian Chand & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Avtar Singh and Ors v. State of Punjab
- Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.