2000 (10) TMI 948 - SC - Customs

Charge for the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Held that - Dealing with the case of appellant - Mehaboob we notice that Exhibit P-9 statement attributed to him does not contain any inculpatory statement which would involve him either in a conspiracy or in an abetment for the offences committed by other accused. The worst part in the statement - Exhibit P-9 is that he was informed that brown sugar could be supplied to him and he went to the house of A-2 in response to that. It is admitted by the prosecution that no brown sugar had been given to him pursuant to the said offer nor did appellant - Mehaboob part with any money as consideration thereof. Thus it is very difficult to convict appellant - A.K. Mehaboob (A3) on the strength of the statement contained in Exhibit P-9. We allow Criminal Appeal filed by A.K. Mehaboob (A3) and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him by the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
- Conviction and sentencing under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- Reliability of Exhibit P-8 statement.
- Alleged violations of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act.
- Conviction of A.K. Mehaboob (A3) based on Exhibit P-9 statement.
- Application of Section 30 of the Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the appeals by the second accused (P.K. Naushad) and third accused (A.K. Mehaboob) in a case involving charges under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court had acquitted Naushad and Mehaboob but convicted the first accused (N.P. Divakaran). Upon appeal, the High Court convicted Naushad and Mehaboob as well, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The case revolved around the recovery of brown sugar from Divakaran and statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The defense argued against the reliability of Exhibit P-8 statement, citing retraction and coercion. However, the court found no evidence of coercion in obtaining the statement, rejecting the defense's contentions.

Regarding alleged violations of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act, the court dismissed the contentions due to lack of factual basis and lack of serious arguments before the High Court. The court noted that the Intelligence Officers acted in accordance with Section 57. Moving to the case of Mehaboob, the court observed that the Exhibit P-9 statement did not implicate him in any conspiracy or abetment. Mehaboob's actions did not involve exchange of money for brown sugar, and the prosecution failed to recover any money from him. The court highlighted the absence of incriminating evidence in Exhibit P-9 to convict Mehaboob.

Furthermore, the court declined to consider Section 30 of the Act for Mehaboob's conviction, as it was not part of the original charge or discussion during the trial. Ultimately, the court allowed Mehaboob's appeal, setting aside his conviction and sentence, while dismissing Naushad's appeal. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence to convict Mehaboob and the importance of adhering to the charges and discussions during the trial without introducing new provisions post-conviction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of Naushad but overturned Mehaboob's conviction based on insubstantial evidence and the inapplicability of Section 30. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence, adherence to legal procedures, and the necessity of proving charges beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases involving narcotics offenses.