In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has underscored that mere suspicion or association is inadequate to convict an individual under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act without concrete evidence establishing their complicity.
The case involved two individuals, referred to as A1 and A2, who were apprehended while traveling together to Bangkok. Upon inspection of their check-in luggage, customs officials discovered false compartments containing black polythene bags filled with a white crystalline substance, later identified as ketamine. Both were subsequently charged under Sections 23(c) read with 28 and 29(1), and Section 23(3) read with 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
During the trial, the prosecution primarily relied on the fact that A1 and A2 were traveling together and on their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, Justice K. Surender highlighted that statements made under Section 67 are inadmissible as evidence. The court emphasized that without concrete proof of A2's involvement, mere association with A1 could not substantiate a conviction. Justice Surender stated, "Suspicion and/or assumption cannot form basis to find A2 guilty when the complicity of A2 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution." Consequently, A2 was acquitted, while the conviction of A1 was upheld.
The defense also argued that the procedural mandates under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which pertain to the proper handling and sampling of seized contraband, were not adhered to by the authorities. The court, however, dismissed this contention, noting that such a defense was not raised during the trial and could not be introduced at the appellate stage. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Aambale's case, reinforcing that procedural lapses not contested during the trial cannot be grounds for appeal.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance that convictions under the NDPS Act must be based on unequivocal evidence of an individual's involvement in illicit activities. The mere presence or association with a co-accused, without substantive proof of knowledge or participation in the crime, is insufficient for a conviction. The judgment serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to evidentiary standards and procedural protocols to ensure that justice is both served and seen to be served.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.