Failure To Provide Explanation In Organized Crime Where Criminal Conspiracy Is Hatched For Transportation Of Contraband Would Be Fatal To Defence
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the failure to provide explanation in an organized crime where criminal conspiracy is hatched for transportation of contraband, would be fatal to defence.
The Court held thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Special Judge, convicting the accused persons under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “In cases of organized crime, where a criminal conspiracy is hatched for the transportation of substantial quantity of contraband, and the same is established through clinching evidence, failure on the part of the accused to provide explanation would prove fatal to their defence.”
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of Bharat Aambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 250 of 2025) in which it was held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband and from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural difficulty in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
Advocates Nikhil Wadhwani, Jameel Akhtar Lohani, and Punit Ruparel appeared for the Appellants while Advocate Anumeh Shrivastava appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29(1) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each. In 2020, Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO) received a secret information about transporting approximately 800 kg illegal cannabis (Ganja) from Sunki, Andhra Pradesh to Lucknow via Champa, Chhattisgarh in a truck. The said truck was stopped by the team and the trailer of truck was searched by officers who found that thickness of floor of trailer was comparatively higher than normal, seems to be modified.
There was an iron sheet towards left side, which was opened by officers who allegedly found cavities therein with iron trays. Some packets were found in those trays when taken out from cavities. Resultantly, the team brought the vehicles in police station for further proceedings. The total quantity of cannabis in all the packets i.e., weight of all the packets was done and on weighment, it was found 837.970 kg in total. The accused persons admitted their involvement in smuggling of cannabis and consequently, they were arrested. Being aggrieved by their conviction, the Appellants were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… this Court has no hesitation to hold that prosecution has successfully proved that accused Balwinder Singh knowingly provided his alleged truck for commission of crime and also proved that accused Dharam Singh under conspiracy with accused Ajay Pandey and Balwinder Singh was transporting total 837.97 Kilogram cannabis in the seized truck and accused Ajay Pandey was guiding him in the Scorpio bearing registration No.UP-70DN-2656.”
The Court was of the opinion that the Judgment passed by the Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court and the same needs no interference.
“… the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellants Dharam Singh, Ajay Pandey and Balwinder Singh is hereby affirmed. … In the result, the CRA Nos. 2234 / 2023, CRA No. 1989 of 2024 and CRA No. 2282 of 2023 are hereby dismissed. The appellants Ajay Pandey, Dharam Singh and Balwinder Singh are reported to be in jail. They shall serve the remaining period of jail sentence as has been awarded to them by the learned trial Court”, it said.
The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to send a copy of the Judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the Appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the Judgment by preferring an Appeal before the Apex Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
“Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance”, it ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the conviction of the accused persons.
Cause Title- Ajay Pandey v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:26255-DB)
