Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash NDPS Case, Affirms Evidence Beyond Confession: ‘Meeting of Minds Apparent’”

06 September 2024 11:29 AM

By: sayum


Petition challenging proceedings under NDPS Act dismissed, court emphasizes corroborative evidence beyond inadmissible confessions. The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition to quash a criminal proceeding under the NDPS Act against Rajesh Kumar Baranwal, also known as Bablu. The court upheld the prosecution’s case, emphasizing that sufficient prima facie evidence, beyond inadmissible confessional statements, warranted the continuation of the trial.

Rajesh Kumar Baranwal, the petitioner, is implicated in NDPS Case No. 16 of 2014, involving the seizure of a large quantity of Phensedyl Cough Linctus, a codeine-based syrup. On February 3, 2014, customs officials intercepted a truck near Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar, containing 78,000 bottles of Phensedyl concealed under poultry feed bags. The driver and helper were arrested, and subsequent investigations linked Baranwal to the transportation and intended distribution of the contraband.

The court noted that while the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu rendered confessional statements to customs officers inadmissible, other substantial evidence existed. “The allegation against the petitioner is not only based on a statement of the other co-accused person but also on other materials like mobile call records,” the court observed.

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay pointed to the extensive inquiry which revealed a “well-prepared cross border plan of action,” establishing Baranwal’s involvement through mobile phone records and witness testimonies. “A well-spread chain of activities is forthcoming, upon inquiry,” the judgment stated, emphasizing the synchronization and planning involved in the operation.

The court highlighted that the mobile call records corroborated the statements made by co-accused persons, further implicating Baranwal. The records showed multiple calls between Baranwal’s associates and the individuals arrested at the scene, linking him directly to the criminal conspiracy.

Addressing procedural challenges raised by the petitioner, the court found no merit in the claims of illegality in the seizure and inventory preparation. “The seizure list as well as inventory list have been prepared in presence of the independent witnesses and in accordance with law,” the court noted.

The judgment reiterated that under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court’s jurisdiction is to ensure that a prima facie case exists to justify a trial. “Materials are sufficiently indicating about petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence,” Justice Chattopadhyay wrote, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to determine the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding rigorous standards of evidence in NDPS cases. By affirming the validity of corroborative evidence beyond inadmissible confessions, the judgment reinforces the prosecutorial framework for addressing complex drug trafficking conspiracies. The case now proceeds to trial, with the court urging an expeditious process.

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024

Rajesh Kumar Baranwal @ Bablu vs. Union of India & Anr.

Latest Legal News