Vishnu Bhadra vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received information about a truck transporting Ganja from Odisha to Milan. On 23.06.2018, DRI officers intercepted truck CG-07/CA-5727. The driver, K. Dharmarav, and occupants Surjeet Singh Randhawa and Avtar Singh initially claimed to be transporting dry coconuts but later admitted to carrying Ganja concealed beneath coconut bags. The substance, weighing 6545 Kgs, was seized. Statements were recorded, and samples were sent for forensic analysis, which confirmed the substance as Ganja. Subsequently, Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand were also implicated and arrested. All appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. These criminal appeals were filed against the conviction and sentence.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants K. Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa, and Avtar Singh. The Court found that the Investigator had acted on informant's information, intercepted the vehicle, and seized 6545 Kgs of Ganja, with these appellants present in the truck. The process of sealing, storing, and sampling the seized drug was found to be legal and compliant with Section 43 of the NDPS Act, with no tampering found. Therefore, the trial court's conviction and sentence for these appellants were upheld. Regarding appellants Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand, the Court held that their conviction could not be sustained. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court ruled that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. The Court found no corroborative evidence or other evidence on record to support their statements. Consequently, the prosecution's case against Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Their conviction and sentence were set aside, and they were acquitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants K. Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa, and Avtar Singh, considering the seizure of 6545 Kgs of Ganja and their presence in the truck, in light of Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the conviction of appellants Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand can be sustained solely on the basis of their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, given the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that such statements are inadmissible in trial, and the lack of corroborative evidence, in light of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and Section 29 of the NDPS Act? Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: For Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand, it was argued that they were not present in the truck and their conviction cannot be sustained solely on the statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in law. For the other appellants, the arguments are not explicitly detailed but the judgment implies their conviction was based on their presence and the seizure. Respondent/Revenue (DRI): The prosecution contended that K. Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa, and Avtar Singh were present in the truck where 6545 Kgs of Ganja was seized. For Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand, the prosecution relied on their statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, claiming they were suppliers of the contraband.