22 August 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a recent landmark judgment of Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court has acquitted Ajay Kumar Gupta, an accused in a high-profile narcotic drugs case, overturning both the Special Court's conviction and the High Court's confirmation of the same. The case revolved around the alleged illegal transportation of a large consignment of pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, and the conviction was based on procedural issues and insufficiencies in the evidence presented.

Case Background:

The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident on December 21, 2013, where the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received a tip-off about a consignment of pentazocine being illegally transported by train from Hajipur to Lucknow. Surveillance near the parcel house of Hajipur station led to the interception of Jasvinder Singh (accused no. 1), who identified the consignment he had booked. The search revealed 30 cartons of pentazocine injections.

Statements from accused no. 1 and the appellant, Ajay Kumar Gupta (accused no. 2), under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, played a crucial role in the prosecution's case. Accused no. 1 stated that he bought the injections from Gupta and another individual, Arun Singh. Gupta’s statement corroborated this by revealing that he had sourced the injections from Sanjay Kumar (accused no. 3), who ran a medical store.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments:

The Special Court convicted Gupta and his co-accused under Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Gupta received a sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for the Section 22(c) offense, though no separate punishment was imposed for Section 29. The High Court upheld these convictions.

Gupta’s legal team challenged the convictions on several grounds. They argued that the charge framed only covered the offense under Section 22(c) and not Section 29. They contended that the trial court improperly relied on Gupta's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, is inadmissible as evidence. Additionally, they highlighted that the charge of conspiracy under Section 29 was not put to Gupta during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, further undermining the fairness of the trial. The defense also pointed out the lack of direct evidence connecting Gupta to the consignment of contraband. They argued that crucial witnesses, including the transporter of the consignment, were not examined, and there was no evidence showing that the consignment was supplied by Gupta.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and legal arguments. The Court noted that while Section 22 of the NDPS Act punishes those involved in the possession or transportation of psychotropic substances, Section 29 punishes abetment and conspiracy. In this case, Gupta was accused of providing the contraband but not of transporting it himself. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce evidence proving that Gupta supplied the contraband to accused no. 1 or was involved in a criminal conspiracy. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the reliance on Gupta’s inadmissible statement under Section 67 undermined the conviction. The Supreme Court also addressed the procedural irregularity concerning the framing of charges. Since the charge under Section 29 was not framed against Gupta, and given the lack of evidence for conspiracy, the Court found the trial and subsequent judgments flawed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court, therefore, acquitted Ajay Kumar Gupta of all charges. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and ensuring that evidence is lawfully obtained and admissible. The acquittal highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal standards and protecting the rights of the accused. As a result of this ruling, Gupta’s bail bonds have been canceled, and the convictions previously upheld by the lower courts have been set aside.

  Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973