Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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