Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 Case

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