IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA, J.
Shyam Gupta & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No.421 Of 2019
Decided On : 13-03-2023
NDPS Act - Charges Framed - Sections 21, 22, 29 - The court framed charges for offences under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) against the petitioners. The judgment discusses the admissibility of evidence, including call detail records (CDR), and the requirement of 'grave suspicion' for framing charges.
Fact of the Case:
The Special Task Force received information about drug supply, leading to the apprehension of the accused with heroin and alprazolam. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy involving the petitioners in trafficking contraband substances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against petitioner no. 3 was based solely on call detail records (CDR) and disclosure statements, which were deemed inadmissible. The court emphasized the need for 'grave suspicion' to frame charges and concluded that the evidence against petitioner no. 3 did not meet this standard.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence, specifically the reliance on call detail records (CDR) and disclosure statements, and the requirement of 'grave suspicion' for framing charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while framing charges, 'grave suspicion' against the accused, which has not been properly explained, is necessary. The evidence against the petitioner did not meet this standard, leading to the discharge of petitioner no. 3 from the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order on charge and discharged petitioner no. 3 from the case, while allowing the prosecution to continue against the other accused.
JUDGMENT :
[Amit Sharma, J.]
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’) assailing the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by Shri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Special Judge (NDPS) North, Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No. 59403/16, titled State v. Shyam Gupta etc., whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges for offences under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) qua petitioner no. 1, Shyam Gupta; under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act qua petitioner no. 2, Saurabh Kumar Yadav and under Section 29 of the NDPS Act qua petitioner no. 3, Ninu Chaudhary.
2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present revision petition are as follows:
(ii) On the basis of the said information, a team of STF reached at Ram Murti Passi Marg, Rohini, Delhi at about 09:25 AM. The secret informer asked the team to stop the vehicle and from inside the vehicle, he pointed out two persons talking with each other as Shyam Gupta and Saurabh Kumar, standing near a black Hyundai Creta car, which was parked at a distance of 25-30 meters away from there. It is further alleged that in the meantime, Saurabh Kumar handed over a black bag to Shyam Gupta and Shyam Gupta handed over one polythene packet to Saurabh Kumar. They were apprehended immediately at about 09:30 AM, who after interrogation disclosed their names as Shyam Gupta and Saurabh Kumar. They were served with a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Sub-Inspector (hereinafter referred to as ‘SI’) searched Shyam Gupta and recovered one transparent polythene bag from the right-side pocket of his pant containing a brown colored substance, which was tested with a field testing kit and was found to be heroin. Two other polythene bags were recovered containing a white colored powder weighing 5 kg each. The said white colored powder was described by Shyam Gupta as alprazolam.
(iii) During the search, a packet containing Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) was recovered from co-accused Saurabh Kumar. No incriminating substance was recovered from the search of the Hyundai Creta car. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner no. 1 Shyam Gupta admitted the possession and recovery of 100 gm of heroin and 10 kg alprazolam and co-accused Saurabh Kumar also admitted his involvement.
(iv) It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner no. 1, Shyam Gupta disclosed that he had collected the recovered alprazolam from petitioner no. 2, Saurabh Kumar, at the instance of one Ms. Ninu Chaudhay and after mixing it with other chemicals, he was preparing heroin which he would then pass on to George, one foreign national. During investigation, he also disclosed details about his apprehension on an earlier occasion.
(v) The respondent has placed on record, a status report dated 13.09.2019, wherein it has been stated that petitioner no. 1, Shyam Gupta disclosed that he used various mobile numbers including 7055268256, 7455081352, 7417723957 & 7458926490 etc. to contact petitioner no. 3, Ninu Chaudhary and get substances from her. He further disclosed that Ninu Chaudhary used various telephone numbers, including 8447415892 and 9205602671.
(vi) It has been further stated that during further interrogation, petitioner no. 2, Saurabh Kumar disclosed that petitioner no. 3, Ninu Chaudhary contacted him on his telephone numbers 9871541449, 9711839923, 9599275745 and 9205602672 from her telephone numbers 8930648891, 83966853299, 8571971440, 9205602671 and 9599300491. It is the case of the p
Dilawar Balu Khurane v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'grave suspicion' for framing charges, emphasizing the need for admissible evidence to establish a prima facie case against the ....
Charges under the NDPS Act cannot be framed based solely on co-accused statements and CDR evidence without establishing grave suspicion against the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence of criminal conspiracy and abetment for the application of Section 29 of the NDPS act.
The need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges.
The admissibility of evidence, including confessional statements, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, were central legal points established in the judgment.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
Bail under the NDPS Act requires evidence proving reasonable belief in the accused's innocence and no risk of reoffending, with the burden on the accused to demonstrate these conditions.
The court established that prima facie evidence is necessary for proceeding with drug-related prosecutions, and confessions made to certain officers are inadmissible.
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.