IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRA PANDEY, JJ
Ali Ahamad, Son of Late Pir Mohammad - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through D.R.I., Patna. Bihar - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.349,979 of 2023
Decided on : 17-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the prosecution case and evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. the court's findings on the prosecution evidence. (Para 10 , 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellants. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 4. judicial observations on evidentiary standards. (Para 25 , 34 , 36 , 38) |
| 5. legal principles governing the burden of proof. (Para 40 , 44 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent (D.R.I.).
2. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 02.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 10.02.2023 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-XXVI, Patna in Special Case No. 128 of 2017, arising out of DRI Case No. DRI/LZU/PRU/718(II)ENQ222017 dated 30.08.2017 14/2017-18.
3. By the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2023 the appellants namely Sunil Kumar and Ali Ahamad have been convicted for the offences under Section 21 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short referred to as the ‘N.D.P.S. Act’). Appellant/Sunil Kumar vide order dated 06.06.2023 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of two years whereby appellant/Ali Ahamad vide order dated 10.02.2023 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of two years for the offence under (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Prosecution Case:
4. The prosecution case is based on a secret information dated 29.08.2017 given by the Intelligence Officer namely Rakesh Ranjan (P.W. 2) to the informant Binod Kumar Mandal (P.W. 3), who is the Intelligence Officer in D.R.I. Office, Patna, a raiding team was constituted under Sri P.R. Srivastava, Dy. Director, D.R.I., Patna, Sri Rakesh Ranjan (Sr. Intelligence Officer), Sri Ashok Kumar (Intelligence Officer), Sri Ramanuj Chaudhary (Intelligence Officer), Somesh Ranjan (Intelligence Officer), J.K. Singh L.D.C. and others. A Tata Truck bearing Registration No. UP-75M-1743 was intercepted by D.R.I. raiding team at Asanpur Kupha Koshi Mahasetu Toll Tax on which the owner Ali Ahamad (the appellant), Sunil Kumar/the appellant (driver) and Sri Ram Kishore (Khalasi) were travelling. The truck was seized but as complete search was not possible there the truck was taken to D.R.I. Office, Patna where the said truck was searched in presence of witnesses and found that the said truck was loaded with rice bran. After intensive examination a secret box was found which was manufactured in the truck in which three packets of Heroin was recovered which were marked as Sl. No. I to III and on weighing it was found to be total gross weight 6276 grams and net weight of 6075 grams. The sample of the recovered contraband article was examined by the Narcotic Kit and the same was found to be Heroin. Thereafter, samples of 5 grams each of 2 – 2 samples from all three packets were prepared and marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2 respectively. The worth of the seized article was valued at Rs. 18,22,50,000/-. Thereafter, the seizure list was prepared on which all three apprehended accused persons and witnesses were put their signatures.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement of informant Binod Kumar Mandal, DRI Case No. DRI/LZU/PRU/718(II)ENQ222017 dated 30.08.2017 was registered under Sections 21 , 23, 25, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act against all the accused persons including the appellants.
6. After production of the prosecution report, the learned Sessions Judge, Patna instituted a case bearing Special Case No. 128 of 2017 and took cognizance against the appellants under Sectio
AI
The court upheld the convictions under the N.D.P.S. Act due to established constructive possession of heroin, emphasizing the validity of procedures followed during the search and seizure.
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is essential for conviction; however, the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically discredit credible police testimony.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, establishing that procedural compliance and evidence corroborate guilt for possession of contraband.
Procedural lapses in evidence collection under the NDPS Act, particularly failure to comply with Section 52A, render prosecution's case insufficient for conviction.
In drug-related offenses, strict adherence to statutory procedural safeguards is mandatory for a fair trial, and non-compliance vitiates the prosecution case.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not required where personal search of the body of the accused is not involved, and the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are not....
The court affirmed that possession of contraband substances establishes statutory presumptions requiring defendants to prove lack of conscious possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub....
The prosecution must prove possession of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, and any procedural lapses do not necessarily invalidate the trial if evidence remains intact.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.