Statements Under Section 67 NDPS Act Alone Not Sufficient for Conviction: High Court Emphasizes Corroborative Evidence in Narcotics Case

Trial court directed to frame charges against accused Ravinder Singh based on CDRs and corroborative evidence in major narcotics case.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has overturned the trial court’s order discharging the accused, Ravinder Singh, in a significant narcotics case. Justice Rajesh Sekhri, presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and other corroborative evidence alongside statements under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) to establish a prima facie case.

On, a Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) team intercepted a truck at Rajiv Nagar Chowk, Narwal, Bye Pass, Jammu, based on intelligence inputs. The truck, traveling from Kashmir to Jammu, was found to be carrying 50.300 kg of heroin concealed in a false cavity in the cabin. The driver and conductor, Gurjit Singh and Ravi Kumar, were arrested. Their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicated Ravinder Singh, who was allegedly orchestrating the narcotics transactions from Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. However, the trial court discharged Ravinder Singh, citing insufficient evidence beyond the Section 67 statements.

The High Court underscored the relevance of CDRs, which placed the mobile phones of both the accused and Ravinder Singh within the Central Jail during the relevant period. This, combined with frequent jail visits by Gurjit Singh to meet Ravinder Singh, provided substantial corroborative evidence.

While reaffirming that statements under Section 67 alone are inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court noted that when supplemented with additional evidence like CDRs, they could contribute to forming a prima facie case. Justice Sekhri observed, “Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot stand alone as evidence but can be corroborated with other substantial material, such as CDRs, to justify trial examination.”

The court cited precedents, including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., to elucidate that while Section 67 statements are inadmissible alone, corroborative evidence like CDRs can play a crucial role. The judgment emphasized, “Call Detail Records and evidence of frequent jail visits provide a nexus that necessitates further judicial examination at the trial stage.”

Justice Rajesh Sekhri stated, “The impugned order of the trial court does not sustain in the eyes of law as it overlooks the crucial corroborative evidence provided by the CDRs and the documented jail visits. These aspects need thorough examination during the trial.”

The High Court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s discharge order and direct the framing of charges against Ravinder Singh marks a pivotal moment in the adjudication of narcotics cases under the NDPS Act. By highlighting the admissibility of corroborative evidence like CDRs alongside Section 67 statements, the judgment reinforces the legal framework’s robustness in tackling narcotics offenses. The trial court is now tasked with reassessing the evidence and proceeding with the trial in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: July 03, 2024

Union of India vs. Ravinder Singh