The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received confidential information on December 21, 2013, regarding the illegal transportation of the drug. Following surveillance at Hajipur railway station, accused no. 1, Jasvinder Singh, was intercepted while identifying the consignment he had booked. The search revealed 30 cartons of pentazocine (Fortwin injections) manufactured by Ranbaxy. During subsequent interrogations, accused no. 1 implicated the appellant, stating he sourced the injections from him and another individual.

The appellant, who operated a medical shop in Patna, claimed he had a valid drug license and only sold a limited quantity of Fortwin injections to accused no. 1, based on a request from another co-accused, Sanjay Kumar. Following the trial, the Special Court convicted the appellant along with the other accused under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, imposing a ten-year sentence and a fine.

The appellant's counsel raised several critical points regarding the legality of the conviction. Firstly, it was argued that the charges framed against the appellant only pertained to Section 22(c), concerning the illegal transportation of psychotropic substances. No charge was framed under Section 29, which relates to conspiracy and abetment. The defense contended that the prosecution's reliance on the appellant's statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was misplaced, as such statements have been ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Furthermore, the appellant's defense emphasized the absence of direct evidence linking him to the contraband transported by accused no. 1. It was highlighted that critical witnesses, such as the transporter of the consignment, were not examined, which weakened the prosecution's case.

Upon reviewing the evidence and legal arguments, the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act prohibits the possession and transportation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances without a valid license. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had supplied the contraband to accused no. 1 or participated in a conspiracy as outlined in Section 29.

The Court underscored the significance of reliable evidence, stating that merely having a statement from accused no. 1, who mentioned purchasing the drugs from the appellant, was insufficient without corroborative evidence. Moreover, it noted that the non-examination of vital witnesses warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the conviction was not supported by substantial evidence. It ruled that the appellant could not be held criminally liable under the NDPS Act due to the lack of concrete evidence linking him to the crime. The court set aside the earlier judgments, thereby acquitting the appellant of all charges. As a result, the appellant's bail was canceled, marking a significant legal victory in the realm of narcotics legislation. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and the necessity for the prosecution to establish a clear connection between the accused and the alleged offenses, particularly in drug-related cases.