Prefatory Note
This analysis addresses the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India[i] on 22.08.2024. The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'), particularly focusing on the legality of the conviction of the appellant, Ajay Kumar Gupta, under ss. 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidentiary basis of the conviction and the implications of non-framing of charges under s. 29.
Facts
Ajay Kumar Gupta, the Appellant and accused no. 2 in this case, was accused of participating in the illegal transportation of pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, from Hajipur to Lucknow.
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received information about this illegal activity, which led to the interception of accused no.1 at the Hajipur railway station.
During the search, 30 cartons of Fortwin injections, a brand of pentazocine, were found. Accused No. 1’s statement under s. 67 of the NDPS Act implicated the appellant, stating that he had purchased the injections from the appellant’s medical shop in Patna.
The appellant, in his statement recorded under s. 67 of the NDPS Act, admitted to selling 30 cartons of Fortwin injections to accused no. 1.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under ss. 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The High Court upheld this conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, finding significant flaws in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the admissibility of statements recorded under s. 67 of the NDPS Act, which the Court ruled inadmissible based on the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu[ii].
The Supreme Court observed that there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the contraband other than the inadmissible statement under s. 67. Additionally, the charge under s. 29, related to conspiracy, was not properly framed, nor was any substantial evidence presented to prove the appellant’s involvement in any conspiracy. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Our Analysis
The Top Court’s ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural and evidentiary standards in criminal prosecutions under the NDPS Act. The reliance on the statement recorded under s. 67 of the NDPS Act, which was deemed inadmissible, was a significant oversight by the lower courts.
The ruling in Tofan Singh (Supra) clearly established that statements made to officers under s. 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as confessional evidence. The Supreme Court rightly applied this principle in this case, highlighting the necessity for the prosecution to rely on legally admissible evidence.
Furthermore, the Court’s attention to the issue of non-framing of charges under s. 29 of the NDPS Act is noteworthy. The absence of a specific charge under s. 29 in the trial court’s proceedings rendered the prosecution’s case incomplete, as the allegation of conspiracy was central to linking the appellant to the illegal transportation of contraband. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was based on the lack of substantive evidence proving his involvement in a criminal conspiracy, which is essential to sustain a conviction under s. 29.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring that convictions, especially under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, are based on solid, legally sound evidence. The acquittal of the appellant serves as a reminder of the need for adherence to legal procedures and the safeguarding of the rights of the accused, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case reaffirms the principle that the mere presence of suspicion or circumstantial evidence is insufficient for a conviction under the NDPS Act. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by admissible and credible evidence, failing which the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2140.
[ii] (2021) 4 SCC 1.
Authored by Sanyam Aggarwal, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
Comments