The appellant was implicated alongside co-accused in a case initiated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), which had received intelligence about the illegal transportation of pentazocine from Hajipur to Lucknow. On December 21, 2013, the NCB intercepted a consignment that had been booked by Accused No. 1, Jasvinder Singh, leading to the discovery of 30 cartons of Fortwin injections.

During the investigation, the NCB recorded statements from both Accused No. 1 and the appellant, where the latter claimed he operated a licensed medical shop in Patna. He stated that he sold Fortwin injections to Accused No. 1 but could only provide 30 cartons at that time. Accused No. 3, who was also involved, allegedly supplied the injections to the appellant.

The trial court ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine. The conviction was upheld by the High Court, despite the absence of a specific charge against him for conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

The appellant’s counsel raised several pivotal arguments on appeal. They contended that the charge framed against the appellant only encompassed Section 22(c), and no evidence conclusively linked him to the conspiracy alleged under Section 29. Moreover, reliance on the appellant's statement, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, was deemed inadmissible as per precedent established in the landmark case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The defense highlighted the lack of concrete evidence showing that the appellant supplied the contraband or participated in a conspiracy. Notably, a crucial witness—the transporter of the contraband—was not called to testify, leading to adverse inferences against the prosecution.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court found insufficient grounds to uphold the conviction. It noted that while Accused No. 1 had booked the consignment, the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had supplied the contraband. There was also no evidence of any conspiracy involving the appellant.

Ultimately, the court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The judgment underscored the importance of robust evidence and proper charge framing in ensuring justice in criminal cases. In conclusion, the acquittal of Ajay Kumar Gupta serves as a reminder of the judicial system's commitment to safeguarding the rights of individuals against wrongful convictions, ensuring that justice is not just done, but is also seen to be done. As the appellant walks free, the case stands as a testament to the principles of fairness and due process in the legal system.