The Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru has delivered a significant ruling by quashing proceedings under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act against Junaid Hussain Haveri, a techie from Hubballi working in Bengaluru. The court determined that allowing the case to continue would constitute an abuse of law, as it was registered based solely on the confession statement of a co-accused, without substantial evidence.
Background of the NDPS Case
The case originated from a June 20, 2023, operation conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Officers intercepted a Speed Post parcel suspected to contain drugs, which was sent from Coimbatore and addressed to Junaid at Marathalli Colony in Bengaluru. Upon inspection, the parcel was found to contain silver foil with 50 blot papers in a printed pattern, believed to be LSD tablets.
Controlled Delivery and Investigation
The NCB team arranged a controlled delivery using a dummy parcel. Junaid's former roommate, Abhay Kumar, received the parcel after affixing his signature. During the investigation, Abhay informed NCB officers that Junaid had requested him to receive the parcel and hand it over later. Based on this statement, Junaid was summoned under Section 67(2) of the NDPS Act. In the case, Abhay was named accused no. 2, another engineer Ayush Kishore Borse as accused no. 1, and Junaid as accused no. 3.
Junaid's Defense and Legal Arguments
Junaid, a BTech graduate from NIT Surathkal working as a business operations associate in a Bengaluru software company, argued that he had no knowledge of the parcel's contents. He stated that he merely asked Abhay to receive it and give it to him, with no evidence showing he received or transferred money related to the incident. Additionally, Junaid claimed that the procedure stipulated under Sections 50-A and 2(vii)(b) of the NDPS Act, pertaining to the controlled delivery system, was not followed properly.
Previous Court Rulings and NCB Opposition
In January last year, the high court had quashed proceedings against Abhay due to violations in the controlled delivery procedure. However, the NCB opposed Junaid's petition, asserting that other evidence was available against him. After reviewing the materials on record, including voluntary statements from all three accused, Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the NCB's request.
Court's Rationale and Legal Precedent
Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that there was no evidence linking Junaid to the crime beyond the voluntary or confession statements recorded during the investigation. The judge cited the Supreme Court case of Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu and subsequent judgments, which clearly state that conviction cannot be based solely on confessional statements as they hold no evidentiary value. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards and preventing misuse of the law in NDPS cases.
