Delhi High Court Upholds Convictions in Narcotics Case While Modifying Sentences: “Voluntary Statements Under Section 67 NDPS Act, If Corroborated, Are Efficacious Proof of Guilt”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions of three appellants—Rajinder Kumar, Syed Abu Ala, and Mohd. Altaf—under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). However, considering the advanced age and the period already undergone by the appellants, the court modified the sentences to the time served. The court emphasized that voluntary statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible and can form a robust basis for conviction when corroborated with other evidence.

Facts

1. Incident: Acting on information, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) conducted a raid on premises in Delhi, where they seized:
   • 32.555 kg of heroin.
   • Chemicals, including Acetic Anhydride, a controlled substance.
   • Equipment used for manufacturing heroin.
2. Arrests: The accused included:
   • Rajinder Kumar, who allegedly supplied Acetic Anhydride.
   • Syed Abu Ala, who was accused of manufacturing heroin.
   • Mohd. Altaf, a servant who assisted in the operation.
3. Key Evidence: The prosecution relied on:
   • Statements under Section 67 NDPS Act.
   • Physical recovery of drugs and controlled substances.
   • Testimonies of witnesses, including investigators and chemical examiners.

Issues

1. Voluntariness and Admissibility:
   • Were the statements under Section 67 NDPS Act voluntary and could they be relied upon?
2. Procedural Compliance:
   • Was there compliance with Sections 42 (mandatory recording and forwarding of information) and 50 (right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer)?
3. Conspiracy:
   • Did the appellants conspire to manufacture and distribute heroin?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Coercion Allegation: The appellants claimed their statements were obtained under duress and were retracted at the earliest opportunity.
• Procedural Lapses: They argued non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act.
• No Knowledge: Rajinder Kumar contended that he supplied Acetic Anhydride for legitimate purposes like dyeing and was unaware of its use in heroin production.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Voluntariness: The prosecution maintained that the statements were made voluntarily without any coercion.
• Compliance with NDPS Act: Procedural safeguards were substantially complied with, including issuing notices and conducting searches.
• Conspiracy Evidence: The chain of events, recoveries, and corroborated statements demonstrated the existence of a conspiracy involving all appellants.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 67 NDPS Act

• The court analyzed whether statements under Section 67 could be admitted as evidence. It held:
  • Voluntary statements made by the accused, admitting their guilt, are reliable and admissible.
  • A retraction of the statement does not automatically negate its evidentiary value unless evidence of coercion is shown.
• Supporting Precedents:
  • Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 40): Confessions must pass the tests of voluntariness and truthfulness.
  • Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995): Voluntary confessions are strong evidence of guilt.

2. Section 42 NDPS Act

• This section mandates that information received by officials must be reduced to writing and forwarded to superiors.
• The court found:
  • There was substantial compliance as the information was acted upon immediately to prevent the contraband’s removal.
  • Non-recording of the initial telephonic information did not prejudice the appellants, as subsequent steps were documented.

3. Section 50 NDPS Act

• This section provides the accused the right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
• The court held:
  • Notices under Section 50 were issued, and the accused declined the option, fulfilling the procedural requirement.
  • Relying on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), the court noted that substantial compliance is sufficient when evidence supports the case.

4. Conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act

• The court examined the chain of events, including:
  • Rajinder Kumar’s admission of supplying Acetic Anhydride.
  • Recovery of large quantities of controlled substances from Syed Abu Ala’s premises.
  • Mohd. Altaf’s statements confirming his role in assisting the operation.

Precedent Analysis

The court referred to multiple precedents to support its reasoning:

1. Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009): Procedural compliance under Section 42 must be judged based on case-specific facts.
2. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008): Highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence alongside statements under Section 67.
3. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999): Emphasized the right of the accused under Section 50 and the need for substantial compliance.

Court’s Reasoning

• Evidence Strength: The statements under Section 67, corroborated by recoveries, formed a compelling case against the appellants.
• Procedural Compliance: The court found substantial compliance with Sections 42 and 50, dismissing technical objections raised by the appellants.
• Voluntariness: The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate coercion or duress during the recording of their statements.

Conclusion

1. Rajinder Kumar:
   • Conviction under Section 29 r/w 25A upheld.
   • Sentence modified to the period already undergone.
2. Syed Abu Ala:
   • Convictions under Section 29 r/w 21(C) and 25A upheld.
   • Sentence modified to the period already undergone, considering his age and the trial duration.
3. Mohd. Altaf:
   • Conviction under Section 29 r/w 21(C) upheld.
   • Sentence modified to the period already undergone.

Implications

• The judgment underscores the evidentiary value of voluntary statements under Section 67 NDPS Act.
• It clarifies the threshold for substantial compliance with procedural safeguards, balancing strict requirements with practical exigencies.
• The case reaffirms the judiciary’s reliance on corroborative evidence to ensure fairness and justice.

Also Read – Jammu & Kashmir High Court Remands Suit for Re-Trial Over Procedural Irregularities: “Opportunity to Lead Evidence on Amended Issues is Mandatory”