The Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019, delivered a significant judgment on August 22, 2024, involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case centered around Ajay Kumar Gupta, the appellant, who was prosecuted for his alleged involvement in the illegal transportation and sale of Pentazocine, a psychotropic substance commonly known under the brand name Fortwin.
The case dates back to December 21, 2013, when the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received a tip-off regarding the illegal transportation of Pentazocine from Hajipur to Lucknow. Jasvinder Singh, the co-accused, was intercepted at the Hajipur railway station with 30 cartons of Fortwin injections. The prosecution alleged that these injections were supplied by the appellant, Ajay Kumar Gupta, who operated a medical shop in Patna, Bihar.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 22(c) pertains to the punishment for contravention involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, while Section 29 deals with the punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
One of the key points of contention was the admissibility of statements made by the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The appellant argued that these statements were inadmissible as evidence, citing the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that confessions made to NCB officers under Section 67 are not admissible as evidence.
Judgment and Court’s Observations:
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih. The court thoroughly examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties.
One of the critical observations made by the Supreme Court was the lack of direct evidence linking Ajay Kumar Gupta to the contraband in question. The court noted that while the prosecution had heavily relied on the appellant’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, this statement could not be used as evidence following the precedent set in Tofan Singh. The judgment emphasized:
“A statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”
Furthermore, the court pointed out the absence of any recovery of incriminating material from the appellant. It highlighted that the prosecution had failed to produce crucial witnesses, such as the transporter who allegedly delivered the contraband, which could have substantiated their case. The court observed:
“There is no evidence on record to show that accused no.3 procured the contraband that is the subject matter of the prosecution and handed it over to the appellant or accused no.1.”
Given these deficiencies in the prosecution’s case, the court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to convict Ajay Kumar Gupta under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court also noted the prejudice caused to the appellant due to the non-framing of a proper charge under Section 29 and the lack of investigation against other alleged co-conspirators.
Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, which had convicted Ajay Kumar Gupta. The court acquitted him of all charges, concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the necessity of substantial evidence in securing a conviction under the NDPS Act.
The bench ordered:
“The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments and acquit the appellant of all charges against him in Case No. C2 A 01/2013 before the Court of Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur.”
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019
– Parties Involved: Ajay Kumar Gupta (Appellant) vs. Union of India (Respondent)
– Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
– Date of Judgment: August 22, 2024
– Lawyers: Senior counsel for the appellant and the respondent were involved in the arguments.
