Buddhu Krishani vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

Three criminal appeals were filed challenging a judgment dated March 3, 2023, by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur. Appellants Chandrashekhar Shivhare, Shivshankar Gupta, Buddhu Krishani, and Baldev Prasad Gupta were convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleged that on September 13, 2018, a truck suspected of smuggling ganja was intercepted. The appellants were apprehended near the truck and a car. A search of the truck revealed 482 bags of salt, with 36 HDPE bags containing contraband identified as ganja, weighing 1840 kg. Further, four packets of ganja weighing 40 kg were seized from the driver's cabin. The appellants' statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Samples were drawn and tested positive for ganja. The appellants claimed they were apprehended from a hotel.

Held

The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A significant issue was the procedure followed for drawing samples. The Court held that the act of the Intelligence Officer drawing samples from all the packets at the time of seizure was not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra). This created a serious doubt about whether the substance recovered was indeed contraband. The Court also noted that the non-production of CCTV footage and the failure to collect call records and SIM details of seized mobile phones amounted to withholding of best evidence, as per the headnote. The Court observed that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had not conducted the investigation considering the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, leading to lapses. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of the charges. The appellants were directed to furnish personal bonds and sureties under Section 437-A of the CrPC. The Court also directed the DRI to issue advisories for strict adherence to mandatory provisions in future investigations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged lapses in the investigation and seizure process under the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the procedure followed for drawing representative samples under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court? Arguments for the Appellants: The appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant lapses in the investigation. They argued that the procedure for drawing samples was not in compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mohanlal (supra). They also pointed to the non-production of CCTV footage and the failure to collect call records and SIM details of seized mobile phones as withholding of best evidence. The appellants claimed they were apprehended from a hotel, as evidenced by the guest register and CCTV footage, contradicting the prosecution's timeline. Arguments for the Respondent: The respondent, represented by the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), argued that the investigation was conducted properly and the seized contraband was substantial evidence. The respondent relied on the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the forensic analysis report confirming the substance as ganja.