Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau [April 09, 2024]
Background
This Supreme Court case concerned the conviction of Smt. Najmunisha (Accused No. 1) and her husband Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu (Accused No. 4) under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for alleged involvement in a drug trafficking operation. The prosecution’s case was based on the recovery of charas from an auto-rickshaw allegedly abandoned by Accused No. 4 and a subsequent search of their residence, where further contraband was found in the presence of Accused No. 1. Both were convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld (with modifications) by the Gujarat High Court.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the search and seizure at the residence complied with the mandatory requirements of Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act.
Whether statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible as confessional evidence.
Whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in light of procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies.
Arguments
Appellants:
The search of the house was illegal, as the secret information received only pertained to contraband in the auto-rickshaw, not at the residence. The search was not preceded by mandatory written authorization or proper recording and communication to superior officers, violating Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act.
Statements under Section 67 were inadmissible as confessions, especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, and were allegedly obtained under coercion.
There were inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, including discrepancies in the panchnama and witness testimonies, undermining the credibility of the case.
Respondent (State/Narcotics Control Bureau):
Argued substantial compliance with statutory requirements and that the recovery of contraband from the accused’s possession justified a presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.
Claimed the statements were voluntary and corroborated by material evidence.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court found that the search at the residence was not compliant with Sections 41 and 42, as it was not preceded by proper authorization or recording of information as mandated by law. Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard.
Relying on Tofan Singh, the Court held that statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence. The inconsistencies in the testimonies and the panchnama, along with the lack of independent corroboration, meant the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, and the Court stressed the necessity of rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards to ensure a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted Smt. Najmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu of all charges under the NDPS Act. The judgment strongly reaffirmed that statutory safeguards in search, seizure, and confession procedures under the NDPS Act are essential and that non-compliance undermines the prosecution’s case.
Significance
This ruling is a landmark in reinforcing procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act. It clarifies that strict compliance with Sections 41 and 42 is mandatory, and statements under Section 67 cannot be used as confessions. The judgment protects individual rights against arbitrary action and ensures that convictions under special statutes like the NDPS Act are based on unimpeachable procedural and evidentiary standards.
Citation:
Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu vs. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2319-2320 of 2009, decided on April 9, 2024; [2024] 4 S.C.R. 442; 2024 INSC 290.
RELATED Blog
0 comments