Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (Dri) vs. Shri Ravishankar Mishra

Facts

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received information about the transportation of approximately 800 kg of illegal cannabis from Sunki, Andhra Pradesh, to Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, via Champa, Chhattisgarh, using a truck (PB-12Q-7045) guided by a Scorpio SUV (UP-70DN-2656). A DRI team intercepted the Scorpio, identifying the occupants as Ravi Shankar Mishra and Ajay Pandey. Shortly after, the truck was intercepted, with Dharam Singh identified as the driver. A search of the truck's modified trailer revealed 837.970 kg of cannabis. Dharam Singh identified Balwinder Singh as the truck owner. The DRI filed a case against Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Ravi Shankar Mishra was also an accused. The Special Judge (NDPS) convicted Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh, and acquitted Ravi Shankar Mishra. The DRI filed an appeal against the acquittal of Ravi Shankar Mishra, while the convicted individuals appealed their conviction.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the involvement of Balwinder Singh, Dharam Singh, and Ajay Pandey in the criminal conspiracy. Balwinder Singh was found to have knowingly provided his truck, which had been modified with secret cavities for transporting cannabis, thus proving his involvement. 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 individuals, dismissing their appeals. Regarding Ravi Shankar Mishra, the Court found no iota of evidence to establish a meeting of minds with the other accused prior to the raid. There was no evidence of prior physical meetings or specific conversations detailing his involvement. Relying on the Supreme Court's observation in *Ismailkhan Aiyubkhan Pathan vs. State of Gujarat*, the Court held that mere presence does not create a presumption of involvement in a criminal conspiracy. Consequently, the DRI's leave to appeal against the acquittal of Ravi Shankar Mishra was rejected, and his acquittal was upheld. The Court also noted the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, as per *State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram*.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has successfully proven that the appellants Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, and Balwinder Singh were involved in a criminal conspiracy for transporting 837.970 kg of cannabis, thereby committing offences 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 presented sufficient evidence to establish the meeting of minds and prior involvement of Ravi Shankar Mishra in the criminal conspiracy for transporting cannabis, or if his presence in the Scorpio was merely coincidental? (Question of law and fact) Arguments: Petitioner/Appellants (Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh, Balwinder Singh): The judgment does not explicitly record arguments for the convicted appellants. However, their appeals were against their conviction. Respondent (DRI): The DRI argued that Balwinder Singh, as the owner, was responsible for the truck's modifications and thus involved in the conspiracy. They also contended that Dharam Singh was transporting the cannabis under conspiracy with Ajay Pandey and Balwinder Singh, and Ajay Pandey was guiding him. Regarding Ravi Shankar Mishra, the DRI sought to appeal his acquittal, implying they believed there was sufficient evidence of his involvement.