NDPS Act Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Bombay High Court’s Decision in Drug Possession Case

Petitioner Name: Union of India
Respondent Name: Leen Martin & Anr.
Judgment By: N.V. Ramana, JusticeS. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment Date: N.V. Ramana, JusticeS. Abdul Nazeer

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in Union of India v. Leen Martin & Anr., a case concerning the alleged illegal possession of narcotic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, Leen Martin, citing procedural lapses and insufficient evidence.

Background of the Case

The case originated on May 5, 2004, when officers of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, observed a passenger of European origin behaving suspiciously near the Swiss Air airline counters. Upon further investigation, customs officials intercepted the individual, Leen Martin, before he could board his flight.

After completing his immigration and customs formalities, Martin was subjected to an examination by a sniffer dog. Upon indication of the presence of contraband, customs officers took him to a baggage screening area, where they found that his suitcase was abnormally heavy. Upon opening it, they discovered a false bottom containing three rectangular packets wrapped in cellophane tape. Subsequent chemical analysis confirmed that the substance inside was hashish, weighing a total of 12.03 kg.

Martin was immediately detained and his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Following an investigation, he was charged under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), and 28 read with Section 23 of the NDPS Act, which deal with the possession, trafficking, and attempt to export narcotic substances.

Trial Court Conviction

The trial in NDPS Special Case No. 133 of 2004 resulted in Martin’s conviction:

• 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
• A fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with an additional six months of simple imprisonment in case of default.
• Another 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 28 read with Section 23 of the NDPS Act.
• Both sentences were to run concurrently.

Bombay High Court Acquittal

Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, Martin filed Criminal Appeal No. 379/2007 before the Bombay High Court. On November 20, 2008, the High Court overturned the conviction, citing the following key reasons:

• The prosecution failed to establish that the panch witnesses were present during the seizure procedure.
• The trial court had erroneously relied solely on the testimony of PW-1 (the Intelligence Officer), which contained contradictions.
• The statements of PW-8 and PW-9 (panch witnesses) contradicted the prosecution’s version, as they claimed that the suitcase was already open when they arrived at the examination area.
• PW-9’s cross-examination revealed that his signatures were obtained on several documents without him understanding the contents.

On these grounds, the High Court acquitted Martin of all charges.

Union of India’s Appeal to the Supreme Court

Unhappy with the High Court’s decision, the Union of India filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that:

• The trial court had correctly convicted Martin based on the recovery of 12.03 kg of hashish from his suitcase.
• The statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was sufficient to establish guilt.
• The High Court had erred in acquitting the accused despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies

The Supreme Court found that the testimonies of the panch witnesses (PW-8 and PW-9) directly contradicted the prosecution’s claims. While PW-1, the Intelligence Officer, stated that the suitcase was opened in the presence of witnesses, both PW-8 and PW-9 denied this, stating that the suitcase was already open when they arrived.

2. Reliability of the Section 67 Statement

Martin’s statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was retracted on June 29, 2004. The Court observed:

“Exclusive reliance on a retracted statement, without corroborative evidence, cannot be the basis of conviction.”

3. Violation of Procedural Safeguards

The Court found that the panchanama was not read over to the witnesses, and their signatures were obtained on multiple documents without explanation. The Court remarked:

“The search and seizure must be conducted in strict adherence to the procedural safeguards enshrined in the NDPS Act. Any deviation raises doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.”

4. Lack of Independent Corroboration

Since the recovery of narcotics was the only evidence against the accused, and the testimonies of the witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court concluded that the case had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s acquittal, stating:

• The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The reliance on a retracted statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without independent corroboration, was insufficient.
• The procedural lapses during seizure and witness examination raised serious concerns about the fairness of the trial.
• Given that the case dated back to 2004 and Martin had already spent four and a half years in custody, further litigation was unwarranted.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for NDPS Act cases:

• Strict Adherence to Procedure: The judgment reinforces that any lapses in search and seizure procedures can result in acquittal.
• Retraction of Statements: Courts must exercise caution while relying solely on confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
• Presumption of Innocence: The decision upholds the fundamental principle that an accused cannot be convicted unless the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Safeguarding Individual Rights: The ruling ensures that procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act are strictly followed to prevent wrongful convictions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Leen Martin & Anr. is a landmark ruling that upholds the principles of fair trial and procedural compliance under the NDPS Act. By acquitting Martin due to procedural lapses and lack of independent corroboration, the Court reinforced the necessity of strict adherence to legal safeguards in narcotics cases. This decision will serve as an important precedent in future cases involving search and seizure under the NDPS Act.

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

Download Judgment: Union of India vs Leen Martin & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-02-2018.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 N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 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