MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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