NDPS trial procedure, customs statements, corroboration and conscious possession sustained convictions for heroin offences.
A Special Court under the NDPS Act proceeds as a Court of Session unless the Act provides a different procedure, and no prejudice was shown from using the sessions trial framework. Statements recorded by Customs officers before any formal accusation were not barred by Article 20(3), and retraction did not by itself nullify their evidentiary value. Accomplice statements were treated as reliable because they were corroborated by independent circumstances, including recovery, forensic confirmation and conduct of the accused; objections to search, seizure and sampling also failed. Conscious possession, including constructive possession, together with the statutory presumption from possession supported liability under the NDPS Act, including abetment and conspiracy.
Issues: (i) Whether a Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act was required to follow the procedure for trial of warrant cases by Magistrates instead of the procedure applicable to a Court of Session; (ii) whether statements recorded by Customs from the accused were barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India or otherwise inadmissible because they were retracted; (iii) whether the accomplice statements were sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence and whether the seizure, sampling and investigation suffered from illegality; (iv) whether the accused Yasihey Yobin and Lisihey Ngwazah were in conscious possession of heroin and whether Arun Kanungo and Raju Premji were liable for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
Issue (i): Whether a Special Court constituted under the NDPS Act was required to follow the procedure for trial of warrant cases by Magistrates instead of the procedure applicable to a Court of Session.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of the NDPS Act provides that, save as otherwise provided, the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to proceedings before a Special Court and that the Special Court is deemed to be a Court of Session. In the absence of any provision in the NDPS Act corresponding to the special procedure applicable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial before the Special Court was to proceed as a sessions trial. No prejudice was shown from adoption of that procedure.
Conclusion: The challenge to the trial procedure failed and the contention was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether statements recorded by Customs authorities from the accused were barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India or otherwise inadmissible because they were retracted.
Analysis: Protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) applies only when there is a formal accusation of an offence. On the facts, no FIR or complaint had been lodged when the statements were recorded, and the accused were not shown to have acquired the character of persons accused of an offence at that stage. The statements recorded by Customs officers were also not treated as confessions hit by the rule applicable to police statements, and retraction by itself did not destroy their evidentiary value. The statements were therefore admissible, though they had to be scrutinised in the light of surrounding circumstances.
Conclusion: The objection under Article 20(3) and the attack based on retraction were rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the accomplice statements were sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence and whether the seizure, sampling and investigation suffered from illegality.
Analysis: The statements of the accused were found to interlock with each other and to receive support from independent circumstances, including the source information, the recovery of heroin, the scientific report confirming the contraband, and the conduct of the accused. The Court also held that even assuming irregularity in search or seizure, relevant evidence obtained thereby was not to be excluded in the absence of a prohibitory provision, and no illegality was found in sending the sample to the forensic laboratory or in the course adopted by the Customs authorities. The rule requiring corroboration of accomplice evidence was satisfied by the additional evidence on record.
Conclusion: The prosecution evidence was held to be sufficiently corroborated and the objections to search, seizure and sampling failed.
Issue (iv): Whether the accused Yasihey Yobin and Lisihey Ngwazah were in conscious possession of heroin and whether Arun Kanungo and Raju Premji were liable for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
Analysis: Possession under the NDPS Act was treated as including constructive possession, and the statutory presumption from possession operated against the accused unless rebutted by proof. The explanation offered on behalf of Lisihey Ngwazah was not supported by proof, and the surrounding circumstances established conscious possession. The evidence also showed that Arun Kanungo and Raju Premji actively participated in procuring the contraband and attempting to find buyers, thereby supporting liability for abetment and conspiracy.
Conclusion: The findings of possession against Yasihey Yobin and Lisihey Ngwazah, and of abetment and conspiracy against Arun Kanungo and Raju Premji, were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences under the NDPS Act were sustained on the basis of admissible and corroborated evidence establishing possession of heroin and participation in its procurement and attempted disposal.
Ratio Decidendi: A Special Court under the NDPS Act follows the procedure of a Court of Session, statements made to Customs authorities before formal accusation are not barred by Article 20(3), accomplice evidence may sustain conviction when corroborated by independent circumstances, and conscious or constructive possession together with the statutory presumption from possession can found liability under the NDPS Act.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
