Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1660
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Manoj Tejraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5179-5181 of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 5184-5185 of 2024, Criminal Appeal Nos. 5182-5183 of 2024, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492-1493 of 2025
Decided On : 28-08-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Ms. Saloni Meshram, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jain, Adv. Mr. Vinay Vats, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Anand, AOR Mr. Praveen Kumar Jha , AOR Mr. Virender K., Adv. Mr. Shoaib Akhter, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 25A and 29 - Conviction under NDPS Act for possession and conspiracy involving controlled substances - Conviction upheld for one convict with reduced sentence; others acquitted due to lack of evidence. (Paras 3, 38, 71, 73)
(B) The requirement for foundational facts for presumption is emphasized. (Paras 57-59)
(C) Courts must exclude confessions when evaluating evidence against accused. (Paras 66-68)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, convicted for trafficking Ephedrine, challenged their convictions post the High Court's affirmation of the trial court's order. Evidence primarily sourced from police and hostile witnesses.
Findings of Court:
Conviction of one affirmed with sentence reduced; others acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Issues: The court addressed evidentiary standards for drug-related convictions and the necessity of foundational evidence for invoking presumptions of culpability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that mere confessions cannot form the basis of conviction without corroborating evidence and established the need for foundational facts in NDPS offences.
Result: Appeals partly allowed; acquittal of the other appellants.
The compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to the procedures and safeguards during search and seizure operations, is a significant aspect of the case. Based on the provided document, the following points are relevant:
-
The search and seizure conducted at the premises of Narendra Kacha, who was in possession and control of the godown, resulted in the recovery of 55 boxes of Ephedrine weighing 1364 Kgs (!) (!) . The search was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses (panchas); however, all these witnesses turned hostile, which raises concerns about the compliance with procedural safeguards (!) (!) .
-
Despite the witnesses turning hostile, the Court observed that the search ultimately led to the recovery of the contraband and that the procedure did not suffer from fundamental infirmities. The Court noted that the search was not illegal or contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act, implying a finding of procedural compliance (!) (!) .
-
The Court scrutinized the evidence regarding the search and seizure process, including the signatures obtained and the conduct of the police officers involved. It was noted that the witnesses, although hostile, did not provide sufficient grounds to disbelieve the legality of the search (!) .
-
The Court emphasized that the search and seizure, which led to the recovery of the controlled substance, was ultimately justified and that the procedural requirements under Section 42 were sufficiently met, or at least did not render the evidence inadmissible (!) .
In conclusion, the Court found that the search and seizure were carried out in accordance with the procedural safeguards mandated by Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the evidence obtained therein was admissible. This compliance was a crucial factor in affirming the conviction of Narendra Kacha, although the Court also acknowledged the importance of the procedural safeguards and the hostile witnesses' role in the case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for similar appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court convicted all accused in ndps cases. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. seizure of controlled substance with confessional statements. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. dissatisfaction with trial judgment led to appeals. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's critical view of high court's assessment. (Para 22 , 30 , 31 , 40) |
| 6. legal principles of culpability under ndps act. (Para 32 , 33 , 35) |
| 7. high court's decision on evidentiary standards. (Para 60 , 62 , 70) |
| 8. reduction of sentence based on time served. (Para 71 , 72) |
| 9. acquittal of connected cases and discharge of bonds. (Para 73 , 74) |
ORDER :
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same and the challenge is also to the self-same Judgment and Order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order.
2. These appeals are at the instance of four convicts and are directed against the self-same Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 8-9-2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2328/2019, 2349/2019, 5184-5185/2024 and 2298/2019 respectively, by which the High Court dismissed all the appeals preferred by the convicts and thereby affirmed the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 7-10-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur at Ahmedabad in the NDPS Case No. 4/2016, NDPS Case No. 6/2016 and NDPS Case No. 2/2017 respectively.
3. It appears from the materials on record that in all six persons including the four appellants herein before us were put to trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur at Ahmedabad in connection with the NDPS Case Nos. 6 of 2016, 2 of 2017 and 4 of 2016 respectively for the offence punishable under Sections 25A and 29 respectively of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”).
4. The trial court held all the accused persons put to trial, guilty of the offences they were charged with as enumerated above and sentenced them to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
5. It all started with a First Information Report dated 14.04.2016 lodged by one Shri. V. R. Malhotra Inspector of Police ATS Ahmedabad. The same came to be registered as FIR No. 2 of 2016.
6. It appears that the first person to be arrested was Narendra Dhirajlal Kacha, the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1492-1493 of 2025.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of a secret information, the officials of the ATS raided a godown situated in Village Vahelal, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad. This godown was found to have been taken on lease by Narendra Kacha, from a person named Jayeshbhai Patel owner of M/s. MD Steel.
8. The search of the godown led to recovery of 55 boxes containing Ephedrine powder weighing 1364 Kgs. This ephedrine powder is a controlled substance used for manufacturing decongestant syrup.
9. According to the case of the prosecution, Narendra Kacha, at the time of search and seizure, is said to have made a confessional statement before the officials of the ATS implicating himself and other co-accused in so far as the seizure of Ephedrine powder is concerned. It is on the strength of such statement that the ATS got some clues and was able to reach up to the other accused persons including the appellants herein.
10. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheets came to be filed in the Court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.
11. The filing of the charge-sheets culminated in the NDPS Case No. 4/2016, NDPS Case No. 6/2016 and NDPS Case No. 2/2017 respectively.
12. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded to frame charge against the accused persons vide order dated 23-2-2018. Although separate charges were framed yet substantially, they read as under:
“1. That the accused persons had organised a meeting on 9.1.2016 in Hotel Blizz at Momb
