In Criminal Appeal No. 2333 of 2010 -SC- Trial Court's failure to present material circumstances to accused under Section 313 CrPC vitiates NDPS conviction, rules Supreme Court
Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal [24-11-2023]

Read Order: Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 28, 2023: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) case. The decision was based on the failure of the Trial Court to present two crucial circumstances to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This omission was deemed to have caused serious prejudice to the accused's defence, leading to the entire trial being vitiated.

In summary, the accused-appellant, along with two co-accused, was convicted by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act for the offense under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven that the accused were in conscious possession of 205 kilograms of poppy straw without a license or permit. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and the other two individuals.

The appellant's counsel had argued that the accused no. 2 had visited the railway station to inquire about parcels on behalf of the owner. When accused no. 2 did not return, the appellant went to the railway station to inquire about him. The counsel stressed that the railway receipt for the parcels was presented by accused no. 2, not the appellant. Additionally, the counsel asserted that the prosecution's claim that the railway receipt was in the appellant's name was not addressed during the appellant's examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The counsel also highlighted that the allegation that the appellant approached the station supervisor to inquire about the parcel was not raised during the appellant's examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, the counsel representing the State argued that the material circumstances, about which the appellant raised concerns, were indeed presented to the appellant. The counsel contended that the railway receipts were in the name of the appellant, and the appellant's visit to the railway station with accused no. 2 to inquire about parcels containing contraband indicated not only his involvement but also constructive possession of the contraband, given that the railway receipt was in his name.

The division bench, comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, carefully reviewed the appellant's interrogation under Section 313 of the CrPC. The bench observed that a crucial circumstance against the appellant, related to his visit to the railway station and inquiry with the station supervisor about contraband parcels, was not brought to his attention during the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

The bench, in discussing the significance of the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., cited a judgment from the case of Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [LQ/SC/2023/618]. In this judgment, the Court had observed that the Trial Court has the duty to present each material circumstance from the evidence against the accused in a specific, distinct, and separate manner. The failure to do so was considered a serious irregularity, and it could vitiate the trial if it could be demonstrated that such failure prejudiced the accused.

The bench observed that in the present case, a serious prejudice was caused to the appellant's defence as the only material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution were not presented to him during the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Despite the appellant not raising the issue earlier, the omission was deemed significant and fundamental to the appellant's case. According to the bench, it constituted a serious and material illegality committed by the Court.

Thus, the bench held that subjecting the appellant to examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. after more than twenty-two years of incarceration would result in prejudice. The failure to present two relevant circumstances to the appellant during this examination was considered fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court determined that the appellant's conviction could not be sustained on this ground.

Consequently, the Court allowed the present appeal, resulting in the setting aside of the Trial Court and High Court judgments, but specifically in relation to the present appellant. Notably, the convictions of the other two accused were not disturbed.