The Supreme Court, which recently acquitted a man in a drug trafficking case, found that there was absolutely no legal evidence to suggest that the contraband the other accused was trying to transport via rail parcel was supplied by the man/appellant or that he was involved in anything for that purpose conspiracy.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih also observed that the trial court and the High Court relied on the statement of the appellant Ajay Kumar Gupta under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which statement was not admissible in evidence and could not be construed as evidence, in view of the Supreme Court The judgment of the Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021).
“The appellant has not recovered any incriminating information. There is no evidence that the contraband sought to be transported by rail parcel was delivered to accused no. 1 by or on behalf of the appellant.
The court, therefore, held that the respondent Narcotics Control Bureau had not established a case against the appellant under Section 22(c) (punishment for psychotropic substance contravention) and Section 29 (punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act Reasonable suspicion of a punishable offense.
In the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Court found that the statement of the transporter should be recorded to prove that the goods containing the contraband were transported by the respondent No. 3 to the shop of the appellant.
In fact, the person who allegedly transported the contraband of defendant No. 3 to the appellant was a key witness. However, the prosecution has withheld the witness's evidence from the court.
“Therefore, adverse inferences must be drawn against the prosecution. In the statement of accused No. 1, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he stated that he purchased Fortwin injections from the appellant and one Arun Singh on several occasions. However, no investigation has been conducted against Arun Singh.
In the facts of the case, the court recorded that the consignment was booked by defendant No. 1 and, therefore, he was held guilty of transporting psychotropic substances in violation of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
“There is no charge against the appellant for transporting contraband. According to the prosecution, the consignment was registered in the name of the first defendant. Therefore, unless it is proved that the appellant supplied the goods to the no. 1 defendant, or there was a criminal conspiracy to commit Article 22 part of the offense specified in clause (c) without which the appellant cannot be punished.
The evidence of accused No. 3, who was examined as a defense witness, revealed that he was running the business of M/s Maheshwari Medical in the name of his wife. He stated that he issued an invoice for the delivery of Fortwin injections to the appellant.
The bench, however, said there was no evidence on record to show that defendant No. 3 procured the contraband which was the subject of the prosecution and handed it over to the appellant or defendant No. 1.
Therefore, the court held that the appellant’s original judgment was untenable and revoked the original judgment.
The NCB initiated prosecution in the case after receiving a secret message on December 21, 2013, intercepting Jaswinder Singh, who admitted that 30 boxes of Pentazo manufactured by Rambasi were found in the consignment Xin (Fortwin injection).
His statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He admitted that he used to buy medicines from Patna and sell them in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. He claimed that he purchased Fortwin injections from the appellant accused No.2 and Arun Singh on several occasions.
The appellant stated in his statement that he was running a medical shop at Katra Market, Govind Mitra Road, Patna under the name and style of M/s Mangalam Drug Agency. He revealed that he has a valid license from the Bihar Drug Regulatory Office.
He stated that defendant No. 1 came to his shop and asked for 40 boxes of Fortwin injection. He could only offer 30 boxes in cash.
During the trial, the Special Court, Vaishali, Hajipur, held the appellant and accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty of offenses punishable under Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fined Rs. 1,00,000 for the offense under Section 22(c).
The High Court confirmed the appellant's conviction on the basis of the impugned judgment.
