Bhausab Madhukar Gore vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received information about a truck (AP 05/TT/5856) and accompanying pilot vehicles being used for smuggling ganja. A raid was conducted on January 3, 2021, leading to the interception of the truck and a Maruti Swift car. The occupants of the truck identified themselves as N.D. Malleshwar Rao and Albudi Bosu, while the occupants of the car were Y. Bhujang Rao, Bhausaheb Madhukar Gore, and Pradeep Adinath Phatke. The truck driver initially claimed the cargo was organic fertilizer but later admitted to concealed ganja. The DRI office in Raipur conducted a search, uncovering approximately 720 packets of ganja weighing 1533.791 kilograms concealed beneath organic fertilizer bags. The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against all appellants. The evidence established the recovery of 1533.791 kilograms of ganja, which constituted a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The Court found that the sampling procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was strictly complied with, and the CFSL report confirmed the substance as ganja. The integrity of the samples and seals was not successfully challenged. The Court found no merit in the appellants' contention of procedural irregularities or false implication, noting that no plausible explanation was offered for the presence of such a large quantity of contraband. The voluntary statements of the accused, corroborated by surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence, further supported their involvement. The Court concluded that a strong presumption arose under the statute, which the appellants failed to rebut. The trial court's findings of guilt were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were neither perverse nor contrary to law. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was found to be without legal infirmity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in possession of commercial quantity of ganja, thereby committing an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants for offences under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, relating to illegal possession and transportation of narcotic drugs? 3. Whether the conviction of N.D. Malleshwar Rao under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for criminal conspiracy is sustainable? Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellants contended that there were procedural irregularities and violations of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act during the recovery and sampling process. They also argued for false implication. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (DRI) argued that all legal safeguards under the NDPS Act were complied with, the recovery process was properly documented, and the chain of custody remained intact. They asserted that the evidence, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, conclusively proved the appellants' involvement in the illegal transportation of ganja.