Breaking the Chains of Unlawful Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in NDPS Conspiracy Case

Introduction

The case of Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India centers on the application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Ajay Kumar Gupta (the appellant), who was accused of conspiring to transport psychotropic substances. This case highlights crucial legal issues, including the reliance on confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the burden of proving conspiracy in drug-related offences.

 

Factual Background

The case arose from the seizure of a consignment containing pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, which was being transported via railway parcel. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) apprehended accused No. 1, who had booked the consignment. The appellant, Ajay Kumar Gupta, who ran a medical store, was accused of supplying the contraband to accused No. 1.

The prosecution's case was largely built upon the statements made by the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which allows officers to record confessions during investigations. Accused No. 1 stated in his Section 67 statement that he had purchased the contraband from the appellant. The appellant's own Section 67 statement revealed that accused No. 1 had come to his shop and requested 40 cartons of Fortwin injections, a drug containing pentazocine. Based on these statements, the Special Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Ajay Kumar Gupta challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, raising several key contentions:

1.      Admissibility of Confessions under Section 67

The appellant argued that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were not admissible in evidence, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. He contended that his conviction was largely based on these inadmissible statements.

2.     Lack of Evidence of Conspiracy

The appellant asserted that there was no evidence to prove that he had conspired in the transportation of the contraband. He argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that the contraband in the consignment booked by accused No. 1 had been supplied by him.

3.     Non-Examination of Crucial Witnesses

The appellant pointed out that the prosecution had not examined the person who allegedly transported the contraband from accused No. 3 to his medical store, which was a critical gap in the prosecution's case.

The Prosecution's Argument

The respondent (Union of India) defended the conviction, arguing that the appellant had indeed supplied 30 cartons of Fortwin injections to accused No. 1, as substantiated by invoices. They contended that the involvement of the appellant in the transaction was well established by documentary evidence and that the appellant had conspired in the transportation of the psychotropic substance.

Supreme Court's Findings

After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, made the following key observations:

·       The Court found that there was no incriminating material recovered from the appellant, nor was there any evidence to show that the contraband booked by accused No. 1 was delivered by or on behalf of the appellant. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion or association was not sufficient to establish a conspiracy under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

·       The Court relied on the landmark judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as evidence during the trial. Since the appellant's conviction was largely based on these statements, the Court refused to consider them as admissible evidence.

·       Another significant flaw in the prosecution's case was the failure to examine the person who had allegedly transported the contraband from accused No. 3 to the appellant. The High Court had previously noted that the testimony of this transporter was crucial to establishing the appellant's involvement. The Supreme Court held that by withholding this key evidence, the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proof, and an adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution.

·       The Court further observed that the prosecution had not presented any direct or circumstantial evidence to link the appellant to the crime. The Court noted that while accused No. 1 was clearly involved in the transportation of the psychotropic substance, there was no evidence to show that the appellant had conspired in the same act.

Legal Significance

The judgment in Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India reinforces several critical principles in criminal law, especially in the context of NDPS cases:

  1. Strict Adherence to Procedural Requirements: The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in NDPS prosecutions. The failure to examine crucial witnesses and the reliance on inadmissible confessional statements weakened the prosecution's case significantly.
  2. Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements: The ruling reaffirms the principle that statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessions in a trial. This principle has become a cornerstone of NDPS jurisprudence, ensuring that confessions extracted under duress or without proper safeguards do not form the basis for convictions.
  3. Burden of Proof in Conspiracy Cases: The judgment clarifies that in conspiracy cases, mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. The prosecution must provide concrete evidence linking the accused to the criminal conspiracy.

This case serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors that they must build their cases on solid legal evidence, and courts must be vigilant in ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected in accordance with the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had not been able to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and it must be discharged fully and convincingly. Since the prosecution had failed to meet this standard, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of Ajay Kumar Gupta. The impugned judgment of the High Court was quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges under the NDPS Act.

 

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post