Court rules that charges based solely on co-accused's disclosure without independent evidence are untenable; emphasizes lawful possession under valid license.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside charges framed against Anil Kumar Kaushik, a licensed medical dealer, in a narcotics case, citing lack of independent corroborative evidence. The court held that the charges were primarily based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which alone holds no evidentiary value under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), unless substantiated by independent material.
The case originated when police apprehended two individuals, Jaspal Singh @ Rinku and Harjinder Singh @ Kala, who were found in possession of 31,020 Lomotil tablets, an intoxicant substance. The co-accused Harjinder Singh @ Kala implicated Anil Kumar Kaushik, claiming the tablets were purchased from him. Consequently, Kaushik's premises were searched, and additional medicines were recovered, leading to his arrest.
However, Kaushik, represented by Advocate Nikhil Ghai, contended that his implication was unjust as he was operating under a valid license and had no knowledge of any illegality. He argued that the disclosure by the co-accused, which formed the basis of his implication, was not backed by any independent evidence. The prosecution failed to establish Kaushik's conscious involvement in illegal activities or any intent to contravene the NDPS Act.
The court, presided over by Justice H.S. Grewal, underscored that a licensed dealer's lawful possession of drugs does not automatically invoke NDPS provisions. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner's license was verified as genuine, and no evidence suggested his knowledge of the co-accused's forged documents.
Referring to the Delhi High Court judgment in Naveen Handa v. Central Bureau Narcotics, the court reiterated that mere possession of drugs under a valid license, without evidence of intentional illegal activity, does not suffice for NDPS charges.
The court criticized the trial court's decision to frame charges against Kaushik, noting that medicines recovered from his premises were lawfully stocked under his license. The trial court's reasoning, based on the location of the recovery, was deemed unconvincing.
In conclusion, the High Court set aside the trial court's order framing charges against Kaushik, allowing the trial to proceed only against the remaining accused. This ruling underscores the necessity of independent evidence in criminal proceedings, particularly under the stringent NDPS Act, and reaffirms the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Bottom line:-
NDPS Act - Accused cannot be charged solely on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused without independent corroborative evidence and conscious knowledge of illegal activity.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 22(C) and 29, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 173(8) and 401.
Anil Kumar Kaushik v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2914188
