SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 1488

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Rishup, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Jr. Standing Counsel Ms. Aradhna Kumari, Advocate Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Appellant Ms. Km. Shashi Bala Verma, Appellant

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.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Section 21

(C) - Conviction for possession of heroin - Appeals against conviction dismissed - Evidence led by prosecution through multiple witnesses established the seizure of heroin from a secret cavity within a truck - Compliance with procedural safeguards of the N.D.P.S. Act upheld, including notice under Section 50 - Defence arguments regarding inconsistencies and non-compliance with procedures rejected as unconvincing. (Paras 3, 10, 26, 39, 49)

(B) Prosecution's burden to establish prima facie case and shift of burden to the accused discussed - Constructive possession defined - Attribution of knowledge about the narcotics essential for conviction upheld. (Paras 44, 39)

(C) Reliability of forensic reports and their acceptance without the need for the chemical analyst's testimony considered valid. (Paras 42, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted following the interception of their truck carrying heroin, valued at approximately Rs. 18 crores, and evidence demonstrated that they had admitted to knowledge of the substance’s presence.

Findings of Court:
Conviction based on consistent witness testimony and procedural compliance found satisfactory, no grounds for appeal identified.

Issues: Whether the appellants had constructive possession and knowledge of the contraband, and the adequacy of procedural safeguards in seizure operations.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence confirmed that the essential procedural requirements of the N.D.P.S. Act were met, warranting upholding of convictions despite the defence's claims of irregularities.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top