Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

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.

Similar News