IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Dr. Samiullah Dar - Petitioner
Versus
UT of J&K - Respondent
CRM(M) No.170 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2023
NDPS Act - Charges - Section 8/21, 22(c) read with Section 29 - The judgment discusses the admissibility of confessional statements, call data records, and other evidence in framing charges against the accused. The court emphasizes the need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and other accused were involved in drug trafficking. Confessional statements, call data records, and witness statements were used as evidence. The trial court framed charges against the accused based on this evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioner was either inadmissible or did not connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The trial court erred in relying on inadmissible evidence and sketchy material to frame charges against the petitioner.
Issues: The admissibility of confessional statements and other evidence in framing charges, the sufficiency of evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime, and the trial court's error in relying on inadmissible evidence and sketchy material.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges. It held that even a strong suspicion must be based on some material and cannot be raised on the basis of inadmissible evidence and sketchy material.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the trial court, to the extent of framing charges against the petitioner, was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed against other accused persons in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, whereby, inter alia, the petitioner has been charged for offences under Section 8/21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 1st November 2022, Police Station, Pulwama, received information that accused Sheikh Imran has concealed contraband substance in his cow shed located at Alamdar Colony, Prichoo, Pulwama. Upon receiving this information, the police along with the Executive Magistrate proceeded to the spot and searched the cow shed of accused Sheikh Imran and recovered 13 bottles of Codeine therefrom. The aforementioned accused made a disclosure statement that other accused including the petitioner herein are involved in the business of drug trafficking. In the disclosure statement, the said accused further stated that accused Gowhar Ahmad Najar is in the process of transporting more contraband drugs to him. On the basis of this disclosure statement, the Dy.SP along with his escort laid a Naka at Wagum Mode Degree College, Pulwama, and on the basis of identification made by accused Sheikh Imran, one vehicle (Grand I10) bearing registration No.JK13E/6062 was intercepted. Upon search of the said vehicle, 11 Codeine bottles, two boxes containing 900 tables of Anxit, eight boxes of medicine Petril MD 0.5mg containing 800 tablets and Rs.80,000/ of Indian currency notes were recovered. Accused Gowhar Ahmad Najar could not furnish any explanation about the possession of these drugs. He is stated to have made a disclosure statement wherein he deposed about the involvement of other accused by stating that he obtained these drugs from accused Javaid Ahmad Dar and accused Sabzar Ahmad Parray through petitioner and accused Zain Mohammad Teli. In his disclosure statement, accused Gowhar Ahmad Najar further stated that accused Zain Mohammad Teli would carry these drugs in his car/vehicle with the aid and in presence of the petitioner herein with a view to sell these drugs to him. Thus, according to the prosecution story, all the accused including the petitioner herein are involved in commission of offences under Section 8/21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No.302/2021 of Police Station, Pulwama, was registered and the investigation was set into motion.
3. During the course of investigation, on 04.11.2021, accused Javaid Ahmad Dar and Aijaz Ahmad Bhat came to be arrested and they made confessional statements corroborating the confessional statement made by accused Sheikh Imran and Gowhar Ahmad Najar. During the investigation of the case, on 12.11.2021, accused Sabzar Ahmad Parray was also arrested who disclosed that he had purchased drugs from Yatoo Enterprises through its Proprietor Ghulam Hassan Yatoo. The said accused further disclosed that he was purchasing the drugs from different medical agencies as per the directions of the petitioner and accused Zain Mohammad Teli and thereafter, he would sell the same to different persons including accused Gowhar Ahmad Najar.
4. On 02.12.2021, the petitioner and accused Zain Mohammad Teli came to be arrested and they disclosed that they had purchased the drugs from accused Sabzar Ahmad Parray who is running a medical agency in the name of ‘Parray Enterprises’ and transported the said drugs in the vehicle belonging to accused Zain Mohammad Teli, for handing over the same to accused Gowhar Ahmad Najar, for the purpose of sale. During the investigation of the case, call details of the petitioner were obtained and it was also found that a huge amount of cash had been deposited in his account by some unknown persons. It was found that the petitioner was in contact with other accused persons. It was also found that the petitioner would use the vehicle belonging to accused Zain Mohammad Teli bearing registration No.JK22-0842 for transporting the illicit drugs from one place to another. Acc
The need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges.
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 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.
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding wi....
Co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible against another accused, and the court must only assess prima facie evidence at the charge framing stage.
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 ....
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
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.