A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case pertains to the alleged involvement of Najmunisha (Accused No. 1) and her husband, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu (Accused No. 4), in a drug trafficking operation under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case focuses on procedural lapses during search and seizure operations, primarily the failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court evaluates the admissibility of evidence, the role of procedural safeguards, and the implications of non-compliance. It highlights the jurisprudence that statutory compliance is essential to ensure a fair trial and safeguard fundamental rights. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants by granting them the benefit of the doubt, citing procedural violations and lack of concrete evidence.

Keywords: NDPS Act, procedural compliance, benefit of doubt, contraband, admissibility of evidence.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Smt. Najmunisha v. The State of Gujarat
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2319-2320 of 2009
iii) Judgment Date: April 9, 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Augustine George Masih
vi) Author: Justice Augustine George Masih
vii) Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 442 : 2024 INSC 290
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: NDPS Act (Sections 29, 41, 42, 67); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 6); Constitution of India (Articles 20(3), 21)
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled.
x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Procedural Law, Narcotics Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeals stem from convictions under the NDPS Act for the possession and trafficking of narcotic substances, primarily charas. The appellants were accused of operating a drug trafficking network and were convicted by the trial court, which was upheld with modifications by the Gujarat High Court. The procedural lapses during the search and seizure process, along with the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, became the focal points of the Supreme Court’s scrutiny. The Court addressed whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and adhered to mandatory statutory requirements.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• On December 10, 1999, PW-2 (Mrs. Krishna Chaube) received information about Accused No. 4 transporting contraband in an auto-rickshaw. This information was recorded and reported to PW-3 (Zonal Officer Mr. Pawan Singh Tomar).
• On December 11, 1999, the raiding party attempted to intercept the said auto-rickshaw, but it was abandoned by Accused No. 4. Upon searching, they recovered 1.450 kilograms of charas and a driving license belonging to a third party.
• The raiding team proceeded to the house of Accused No. 4, where they found 2.098 kilograms of charas in the presence of Accused No. 1.
• The prosecution alleged the involvement of both Accused No. 1 and 4 in trafficking. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded, implicating the appellants.
• The trial court convicted Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 4, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court partially modified the sentence but upheld the convictions.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the search and seizure compliant with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act?
2. Are statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act admissible as evidence?
3. Did the prosecution establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Non-compliance with Sections 41 and 42: The raiding party failed to record information in writing or seek authorization before conducting the search at the residence of Accused No. 4. This procedural lapse rendered the evidence inadmissible.
2. Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements: The statements of the accused were recorded under coercion and could not be treated as confessions, as per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
3. Lack of Independent Corroboration: The prosecution did not corroborate key evidence with independent witnesses. The testimony of the raiding party was inconsistent.
4. Benefit of Doubt: The prosecution’s case was riddled with procedural irregularities and failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Compliance with NDPS Act: The prosecution contended that there was substantial compliance with Sections 41 and 42. The search at the residence was a continuation of the investigation.
2. Admissibility of Section 67 Statements: The statements were voluntary and corroborated by material evidence, justifying their admissibility.
3. Presumption of Guilt: Recovery of contraband from the appellants’ possession established a rebuttable presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Non-compliance with Section 41(2): The search at the residence was not preceded by mandatory authorization. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance is not a mere formality.
2. Admissibility of Section 67 Statements: Following Tofan Singh, statements under Section 67 cannot be used as confessions. The Court excluded these statements from consideration.
3. Benefit of Doubt: The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence. Procedural lapses weakened the case, entitling the appellants to acquittal.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to protect the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial.

c. Guidelines

1. Authorities must strictly comply with Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act.
2. Statements under Section 67 are not admissible as confessions and must be corroborated with independent evidence.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance under the NDPS Act to balance law enforcement with individual rights. It reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding due process and ensuring that statutory requirements are not diluted in the name of expediency.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1
2. Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539
3. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299
4. Gentela Vijyvardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 6 SCC 241

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. NDPS Act, 1985
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Constitution of India