In the case of Anwarkhan vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court delivered a crucial judgment regarding compliance with the NDPS Act. The case involved Anwarkhan as the petitioner against the State of Gujarat. The verdict has far-reaching implications on the interpretation and application of drug-related laws. Find out more about the details and implications of this landmark judgment.
Facts
- Anwarkhan was apprehended at ST Bus Stand based on secret information received by Deepak Pareek.
- Anwarkhan(A-1) was carrying a bag containing suspected contraband materials when arrested.
- Vikram Ratnu took over the investigation after Anwarkhan’s arrest.
- Firdoskhan managed to escape initially but was later tracked down and brought for investigation.
- Charges were framed against both Anwarkhan and Firdoskhan for drug-related offenses.
- The contraband substance was found to be brown sugar/heroin and Diacetyl Morphine contents.
- The samples were sent for analysis to confirm the presence of illicit substances.
- The raiding team split into groups to apprehend the suspects and handle the situation at the bus stand.
- Both Anwarkhan and Firdoskhan denied the allegations during questioning under CrPC Section 313.
- The case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge in Nadiad for trial.
- The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants on June 6, 2006.
- The High Court of Gujarat rejected the appeals by the appellants on November 30, 2009.
Also Read: A Case of Culpable Homicide: The Appeal of Kariman vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Arguments
- The appellants argued that the seizure procedure was not followed properly as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
- Violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was claimed as the option to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer was not given.
- The panch witness Manubhai(PW-1) from the Income Tax Department was deemed reliable by the appellants.
- The identification of accused Firdoskhan(A-2) in court without a Test Identification Parade was questioned.
- The appellants claimed that the narcotic drugs were planted on them as per the deposition of witness Vikram Ratnu(PW-3).
- The statements of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were requested to be omitted from consideration.
- The contention that non-compliance of Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure is rejected as Section 43 of the NDPS Act applies to search and seizure from a public place.
- The argument regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is also rejected as the seizure was not during personal search of the appellant Anwar Khan(A-1) and an independent panch witness was present.
- The claim that search and seizure proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory procedure under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is dismissed.
Analysis
- The deferment of formal arrest of Anwarkhan(A-1) was possibly to record his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and avoid Article 20(3) issues.
- The identification of Firdoskhan(A-2) by Vikram Ratnu(PW-3) is deemed untrustworthy and unreliable, casting doubt on the sanctity of the statement.
- Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence, as per the Tofan Singh case.
- Lack of documentation regarding Firdoskhan(A-2)’s apprehension at Shah Jahan Pur Police Station raised doubts.
- Evidence chain for the seizure of narcotics was well-established, but the identification of Firdoskhan(A-2) raised doubts due to inconsistency and lack of clarity.
- Witness discrepancies were addressed, supporting the seizure of narcotics but casting doubt on Firdoskhan(A-2)’s involvement.
- The prosecution successfully proved Anwarkhan(A-1)’s guilt, but the case against Firdoskhan(A-2) lacked conclusive evidence.
- The sequence of events surrounding Firdoskhan(A-2)’s identification and apprehension was questionable, impacting the reliability of the confession.
- The prosecution failed to substantiate the charges against Firdoskhan(A-2) based on the confessional statement.
- Seizure of narcotics from Anwarkhan(A-1) was proven beyond doubt, with proper procedure followed, despite the deferred arrest and lack of Section 50 NDPS Act compliance.
- No contraband substance was found in the possession of appellant Firdoskhan(A-2).
- Evidence of Vikram Ratnu(PW-3) claiming to have identified Firdoskhan(A-2) is deemed unreliable and lacks corroboration from independent evidence.
- Therefore, the evidence of Vikram Ratnu(PW-3) regarding the identification of Firdoskhan(A-2) is to be discarded.
Also Read: Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar vs. State of Karnataka
Decision
- Anwarkhan’s appeal (A-1) is dismissed as lacking merit.
- Anwarkhan’s bail bonds are cancelled.
- Anwarkhan’s conviction by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is quashed and set aside.
- Anwarkhan is acquitted of all charges.
- Anwarkhan, who is on bail, does not need to surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.
- Anwarkhan must surrender before the trial Court within 30 days to serve the remaining part of the sentence, or the trial Court will take steps to apprehend him.
- Firdoskhan’s appeal (A-2) is allowed.
Case Title: FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (2024 INSC 351)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002044-002044 – 2010