Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) vs. Shri Pawan Yadav

Facts

These appeals stem from a single offense and a related sessions case. CRA No. 1495 of 2024 was filed by Vikash Kumar Ray and Amrit Kumar Sahu challenging their conviction and sentence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. CRA No. 2595 of 2025 was filed by Sajan Yadav challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. ACQA No. 247 of 2025 was filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) against the acquittal of Pawan Yadav from charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that on November 11, 2020, approximately 800 kgs of ganja was being illegally transported in a container truck. The truck was intercepted, and three persons, identified as Pankaj Kumar Ray, Vikash Kumar Ray, and Amrit Kumar Sahu, were found inside. A secret chamber in the truck contained 155 packets of ganja, weighing 657.255 kgs. Documents related to the truck, registered in the name of Sajan Yadav, were also recovered.

Held

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the DRI (ACQA No. 247 of 2025) challenging the acquittal of Pawan Yadav. The Court found that no contraband was recovered from Pawan Yadav's possession, nor was he present at the time of seizure. His implication was primarily based on statements made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which the Court held cannot be the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration. The prosecution failed to produce documentary evidence to establish his ownership or control of the 'Patna Bihar Dhaba' or any other reliable evidence directly linking him to the transportation of ganja. The Court reiterated that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the trial court's findings are perverse, illegal, or wholly unsupported by evidence. Since two views were possible, the view favorable to the accused was adopted. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's decision to acquit Pawan Yadav. The appeals filed by the convicted individuals (CRA No. 1495 of 2024 and CRA No. 2595 of 2025) were not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt concerning their outcome, but the focus was on the acquittal appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the alleged conspiracy and transportation of contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)? (Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act). Contentions: Appellants (Vikash Kumar Ray, Amrit Kumar Sahu, Sajan Yadav): Argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove their involvement in the alleged offense. They likely contended that there was a lack of direct evidence linking them to the contraband and that any statements made were not voluntary or corroborated. Respondent (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - DRI): Argued that the evidence, including the recovery of contraband from the vehicle, the presence of the accused, and statements made, was sufficient to establish their guilt. They likely relied on the panchnama, witness testimonies, and the nature of the seized substance to support their case. Regarding Pawan Yadav's acquittal, the DRI likely argued that the trial court erred in acquitting him, presenting evidence of his alleged involvement through co-accused statements or circumstantial links.