Balwinder Singh vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

Facts

Three criminal appeals (CRA Nos. 2234/2023, 2282/2023, 1989/2024) were filed by Ajay Pandey, Balwinder Singh, and Dharam Singh respectively, against their conviction and sentence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These appeals arose from a judgment dated 30.10.2023 by the Special Judge (NDPS), Janjgir. Concurrently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRMP No. 1012/2024) seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of Ravishankar Mishra in the same Special Case (NDPS) No. 11/2020. The DRI had intercepted a truck and a Scorpio SUV, recovering approximately 837.970 kg of cannabis. The truck driver was Dharam Singh, the Scorpio driver was Ravishankar Mishra, and Ajay Pandey was in the Scorpio. Balwinder Singh was identified as the owner of the truck.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the involvement of Balwinder Singh, Dharam Singh, and Ajay Pandey in the criminal conspiracy. It found that Balwinder Singh knowingly provided his truck for the crime, which had been modified with secret cavities. Dharam Singh was found to be transporting the cannabis under conspiracy with Ajay Pandey and Balwinder Singh, with Ajay Pandey guiding him from the Scorpio. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence for these three appellants, finding the evidence to be neither perverse nor contrary to the record or Supreme Court precedents. Regarding Ravishankar Mishra, the Court held that while he was present in the Scorpio with Ajay Pandey, there was no iota of evidence to establish a meeting of minds with the other accused prior to the raid. The Court noted the absence of evidence proving prior physical meetings or details of conversations with other accused. Citing the Supreme Court in *Ismailkhan Aiyubkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat*, the Court held that mere presence does not create a presumption of involvement in a criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal of Ravishankar Mishra and rejected the DRI's petition for leave to appeal. The appeals of Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh were dismissed, and their sentences were affirmed. The DRI's petition for leave to appeal against Ravishankar Mishra's acquittal was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellants Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh were involved in a criminal conspiracy for transporting 837.970 kg of cannabis, as punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29(1) of the NDPS Act? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the prosecution has successfully proved the involvement of the respondent Ravishankar Mishra in the criminal conspiracy for transporting the cannabis, warranting a reversal of his acquittal? (Question of law and fact) Contentions: Petitioner/Appellants (Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, Balwinder Singh): The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the appellants' side in the provided excerpt. However, their appeals challenge their conviction. Respondent (Union of India/DRI): The DRI argued that the modification of the truck to create secret cavities and trays for transporting cannabis indicated the involvement of the owner, Balwinder Singh. They also contended that Dharam Singh was transporting the cannabis under conspiracy with Ajay Pandey and Balwinder Singh, with Ajay Pandey guiding him from the Scorpio. The DRI sought to appeal the acquittal of Ravishankar Mishra, implying they believed there was sufficient evidence of his involvement.