Supreme Court Acquits Drug Store Owner, Citing Lack of Evidence in NDPS Act Case.

In the case of Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India, decided on August 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of a drug store owner charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the appellant's connection to the transportation of illegal psychotropic substances.

Question of Law: At the heart of the appeal was whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's guilt under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. These sections pertain to the punishment for contravention of the Act in relation to commercial quantities of psychotropic substances and punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy, respectively. And also if the reliance on the statement recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act can be made.

Inadmissibility of Confession: The Court heavily relied upon its prior ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu to determine that the appellant's statement given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was inadmissible as evidence. This significantly weakened the prosecution's case, as they relied on this statement to link the appellant to the crime. As argued by the appellent, the reliance on the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, by the Special Court, confimed by the High Court, is not an admissible evidence as held by the Supeme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v.State of Tamil Nadu and admitting the argument the Apex Court held that "Therefore, the appellant's statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence and cannot be read in evidence."

Lack of Evidence for Transportation or Conspiracy: The justices meticulously reviewed the evidence and found no proof that the appellant directly transported the contraband. Crucially, the person who allegedly moved the substances from the co-accused to the appellant was not called to testify. The Court deemed this absence of a crucial witness as detrimental to the prosecution's case, leading to an adverse inference against them. Additionally, the Court noted the absence of any recovery of incriminating material from the appellant further casting doubt on their involvement.

Deficient Charge: The Court pointed out that the charge sheet itself lacked any mention of an offense under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, relating to conspiracy. This further weakened the prosecution's attempt to prove the appellant was part of a larger criminal enterprise.

"Therefore, the appellant's statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence and cannot be read in evidence." "In the facts of the case, the consignment was booked by accused no.1, and therefore, he was found to be transporting the psychotropic substance in contravention of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. There is no allegation against the appellant of transporting the contraband...Therefore, unless it is proved that the appellant had supplied the consignment to accused no.1 or was a part of a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under Section 22(c), the appellant cannot be punished."

In conclusion the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court asserted that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for concrete evidence.

Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih Between: Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India DOJ: 22-08-2024