Telangana High Court Acquits Co-Accused in NDPS Case, Citing Lack of Evidence
Luggage Search Leads to Ketamine Seizure
The Telangana High Court reiterated that a co-accused cannot be convicted based on suspicion or assumption without concrete proof. The case involved two accused (A1 and A2) traveling together to Bangkok. During a luggage inspection by Customs officials, a false bottom in their suitcases was discovered, concealing a black polythene bag filled with white crystalline powder. Upon questioning, the accused admitted that the substance was ketamine.
Court Rejects Confession Under Section 67 NDPS Act
Justice K. Surender noted that the trial court had relied on the accused’s travel together and their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, the High Court ruled that such statements are inadmissible as evidence. The bench emphasized that without proving A2’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, a conviction could not stand. Consequently, A2 was granted the benefit of the doubt, while A1’s conviction was upheld.
Defense Argument on Section 52-A Rejected
The accused were charged under Sections 23(c) r/w 28 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. Their defense argued that the procedure under Section 52-A was not followed. However, the High Court dismissed this claim, stating that procedural violations could not be raised at the appellate stage if they were not contested during the trial. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharat Aambale’s case to reject the defense’s argument.
No Evidence to Prove A2’s Knowledge
The court noted that A1 had checked in the luggage, and though Customs claimed A2’s clothes were found in the suitcase, this alone was insufficient to prove A2’s knowledge of the concealed drugs. The prosecution failed to provide evidence showing A2’s awareness of the illicit contents.
Since no proof established A2’s involvement in drug concealment, the court acquitted A2. Meanwhile, A1’s appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction.
