Statement Recorded U/S. 67 NDPS Act Cannot Be Used As A Confessional Statement During Trial: SC Sets Aside Conviction
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under the NDPS Act while reiterating that a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in a trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
Relying on the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), the Bench acquitted the accused convicted under Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), while observing that the appellant's statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was not admissible in evidence.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “The appellant's statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence and cannot be read in evidence.”
AOR Vivek Singh represented the appellant, while A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati and Sr Advocate Sonia Mathur appeared for the respondents.
The case of the prosecution was that the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received secret information about a consignment of pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, being transported illegally by a train for being sold in the market as an intoxicating item.
The prosecution alleged that during the search of the consignment, another accused claimed that he bought the Fortwin injections from the appellant.
The appellant argued that he ran a medical shop with a valid licence issued by the Office of Controller of Drugs. He claimed that the consignment was obtained by him from another medical store. However, the Special Court convicted the appellant under Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
The Supreme Court noted that there was a complete prohibition on possessing and transporting any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The Bench explained that Section 22 of the Act is attracted when, in contravention of any provisions of the NDPS Act, anyone possesses or transports a psychotropic substance.
Therefore, the Court remarked, “In the facts of the case, the consignment was booked by accused no.1, and therefore, he was found to be transporting the psychotropic substance in contravention of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. There is no allegation against the appellant of transporting the contraband. The consignment was booked in the name of the accused no.1 as per the prosecution case.”
“Therefore, unless it is proved that the appellant had supplied the consignment to accused no.1 or was a part of a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under Section 22(c), the appellant cannot be punished,” the Court remarked.
The Court noted that there was no evidence on record to show that procured contraband, which was the subject matter of the prosecution was handed over to the appellant. Also, there were no allegations against the appellant in contravention of Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for transporting the contraband.
Consequently, the Court held, “There is no recovery from the appellant of any incriminating material…There is no evidence of any conspiracy against the appellant. Therefore, the respondent has not established the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 619)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Vivek Singh; Advocates Ritik Dwivedi, Vishal M Sundaramughan and Abhishek Gupta
Respondents: A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati; Sr Advocate Sonia Mathur; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma; Advocates Rajat Nair, Ruchi Kohli, K Parmeshwar and Jitender Kr.tripathi