Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 31-07-2018 in case of petitioner name Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer, Director
| |

Drug Trafficking Acquittal: Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Based on Lack of Evidence

The case of Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is a significant ruling where the Supreme Court overturned a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court ruled that a confession from a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction, and in the absence of corroborating evidence, the accused must be acquitted.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an operation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) based on specific intelligence that narcotic drugs were being transported from Jammu to Chandigarh. The officers intercepted an Indica car at a toll barrier on the Hoshiarpur-Garhshankar road. Upon searching the vehicle, the officials recovered 3.99 kg of heroin concealed in the car’s boot.

The two men inside the car, identified as Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh, were arrested. Their statements, recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, named Surinder Kumar Khanna as an accomplice in the drug trafficking operation. Based on their statements alone, Khanna was later arrested and charged under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Arguments by the Parties

Prosecution’s Arguments

  • Khanna was named by the co-accused in their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
  • Call data records indicated that Khanna was in touch with an individual named “Chaudhary” from Dubai, who was suspected to be involved in drug trafficking.
  • The lower courts found the statements of co-accused admissible as evidence, convicting Khanna under the NDPS Act.

Defense’s Arguments

  • The accused was not found in possession of any narcotic substance.
  • His alleged involvement was based solely on the statements of the co-accused, which cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
  • There was no independent evidence linking him to the crime, and the call data records did not establish direct involvement.
  • The Supreme Court had previously ruled that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not equivalent to confessions made before a police officer and cannot be used as the sole evidence against an accused.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court considered the case in light of previous rulings, emphasizing that:

  • A conviction cannot be based solely on the confessions of co-accused.
  • Unlike certain special statutes (such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act), the NDPS Act does not specifically make co-accused confessions admissible against other accused.
  • In the absence of any direct evidence, it would be improper to convict the appellant.

The Court referred to the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that confessions from co-accused can only “lend assurance” to other substantive evidence and cannot form the basis of conviction on their own.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of Surinder Kumar Khanna, unless he was required in connection with any other case. The ruling emphasized the need for substantive evidence in criminal trials and reinforced the principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case serves as a precedent for ensuring that legal safeguards are upheld in drug-related offenses and that convictions must be based on concrete evidence rather than confessions obtained under duress or coercion.


Petitioner Name: Surinder Kumar Khanna.
Respondent Name: Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Place Of Incident: Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 31-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Surinder Kumar Khann vs Intelligence Officer Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts