Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had affirmed the conviction of Smt. Najmunisha (Accused No. 01) and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu (Accused No. 04) under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case originated from a secret information received on 10.12.1999 by Intelligence Officer Mrs. Krishna Chaube (PW-02) that Accused No. 04 would be transporting narcotic substances in an auto rickshaw on 11.12.1999. A raiding party was assembled, and on the following day, the auto rickshaw was spotted but sped away and was later found abandoned near a road. Upon search, the raiding party recovered 1.450 kilograms of charas and a driving license belonging to one Abdulgafar Gulamali Shaikh. The raiding party then proceeded to the house of Accused No. 04, where Accused No. 01 was present. A search of the house led to the recovery of 2.098 kilograms of charas from a cement bag in the open kitchen. Both Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 02 (son) were arrested. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded from Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 02, wherein they implicated themselves and Accused No. 04 in drug trafficking. Accused No. 04 was arrested later on 26.06.2000 and also made a confessional statement under Section 67. The trial court convicted Accused No. 01, Accused No. 04, and Accused No. 05, while acquitting Accused No. 02 and Accused No. 03. The High Court partly allowed the appeal of Accused No. 01 by enhancing the fine to the minimum prescribed and reducing the default sentence, but dismissed the appeal of Accused No. 04. The Supreme Court examined the contentions regarding the admissibility of statements under Section 67, compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 41, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, and the effect of minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence. The Court held that the statements under Section 67 were voluntary and admissible, and the procedural requirements were substantially complied with. The minor inconsistencies did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The Court also noted that the acquittal of co-accused did not impact the conviction of the appellants. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence as modified by the High Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 29, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 67 - Confessional Statements - Admissibility - The court considered whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are admissible as evidence. Held that such statements are admissible if voluntary and not retracted, and can form the basis of conviction. (Paras 10, 11, 12) B) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 41, 52A, 57 - Compliance - The court examined whether the procedural requirements under Sections 41, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were complied with. Held that the presence of a Gazetted Officer (Mr. Tomar) satisfied the requirement under Section 41, and the reports under Section 57 were submitted to the Zonal Officer, thus compliance was established. (Paras 10, 11) C) Criminal Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption - The court applied the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that official acts were regularly performed, in favor of the prosecution, as the appellants did not retract their statements or allege coercion. (Para 10) D) Criminal Law - Evidence - Minor Inconsistencies - The court held that minor inconsistencies in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, such as who called the panchas and the recording of statement of Accused No. 02, do not go to the root of the matter and do not vitiate the trial. (Para 12) E) Criminal Law - Joint Possession - The court relied on the depositions of Defence Witnesses to establish joint possession of the house by Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 04, thereby upholding the conviction. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 29 read with 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is sustainable based on the evidence on record, including the confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the recovery of charas.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both criminal appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants as modified by the High Court.
Law Points
- Admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act
- 1985
- Presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Compliance with Sections 41
- 52A
- 57 of NDPS Act
- Minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence do not vitiate trial
- Acquittal of co-accused does not affect conviction of others
