IMPORTANT POINT
An accused cannot be convicted purely on basis of statement of a co-accused.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 67 – Statement of co-accused – Question whether statement recorded u/s 67 can be construed as a confessional statement – Already referred to larger Bench – Unlike Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 and Section 18 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999; no provision in NDPS Act to admit such statement against co-accused – Instantly, appellant convicted on basis of confessional statement of a co-accused – Held, such confessional statement of a co-accused not a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused – In absence of any substantive evidence an accused cannot be convicted purely on the statements of co-accused. (Para 9, 10, 14)
       (2008) 4 SCC 668; (2013) 16 SCC 31; (1952) SCR 526; (1949) 76 Indian Appeal 147; (1964) 6 SCR 623 – Relied upon
       [1911] I.L.R. 38 CAl. 559; [1931] I.L.R. 54 Mad. 7; (1999) 5 SCC 253 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       This is a case u/s 21(c) read with section 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
       Finding of the Court:
       An accused cannot be convicted purely on basis of statement of a co-accused.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Special Leave to Appeal granted.

2. This appeal challenges the correctness of Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.798 of 2014 by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPC Act’, for short).

3. According to the Prosecution:-

a. On a specific information that narcotic drugs were going to be transported from Jammu side to Chandigarh via Hoshiarpur in a white colour Indica car bearing registration no.PB-02AJ-7288, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short ‘DRI’) laid picket at toll barrier at Hoshiarpur-Garhshankar road. At 10:35 hours, they intercepted an Indica car of white colour which was coming from Hoshiarpur side bearing registration No.PB-02AJ-7288. The car was being driven by one Raj Kumar @ Raju whereas one Surinder Pal Singh was sitting next to him. To ensure safe search of the car and personal search of occupants, the car was taken to the office of Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. The officers of DRI served notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act upon said Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh.

b. As desired by said suspects, their personal searches and that of the car were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and Shri SJS Chugh, Senior Intelligence Officer. Personal searches of the suspects did not result in recovery of any incriminating material. However, when the car was searched, four packets wrapped with yellowish adhesive tapes were found concealed in the door of dickey of the car. The gross weight of those four packets came to 4.300 kg.

c. Each of those packets was containing white colour granules/powder which gave a very pungent smell. The pinch of each packet was tested, which showed the presence of heroin. The recovered heroin weighing 3.990 kgs was valued at Rs.19,95,000/-. Those four packets were taken into possession. Two representative samples of 5 gms each were taken out from each of the packets as per rules. Indica car was also seized by the officers of DRI. Statements of both the suspects were recorded. From their statements, it transpired that four packets of heroin had been taken from one Mr. Goldy r/o Vijaypur, Jammu and those packets were to be delivered to a person of African origin near PGI Chandigarh.

d. Initially a complaint under Sections 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act was lodged against said Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh. During investigation, the involvement of the present appellant in the drug racket was said to have been made out. After the appellant was arrested, a supplementary complaint was presented against him and the matter was taken up with the main complaint. After hearing arguments, charges were framed against said Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh and the appellant for the offences under Sections 21, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case examined four witnesses. After hearing submissions, the trial court convicted and sentenced all three accused. The appellant was convicted under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Similar orders for conviction and sentence were recorded against other two accused namely Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh. All three convicted accused preferred appeals; namely Criminal Appeal No.D-955-DB-2013 was filed by Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh while Criminal Appeal No.D-798-DB-2014 was preferred by the appellant. Both these appeals were heard together by the High Court.

5. As regards the appellant, it was observed by the High Court that he was specifically named by co-accused R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 744

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAbhay Manohar Sapre, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.Surinder Kumar Khanna – AppellantVersusIntelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 949 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9816 of 2017)Decided On : 31-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINTAn accused cannot be convicted purely on basis of statement of a co-accused.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
An accused cannot be convicted purely on basis of statement of a co-accused.