IQBAL MOOSA PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 12-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 2 S.C.R. 121 
IQBAL MOOSA PATEL 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1231-1232 of 2009) 
JANUARY 12, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- s.B(c) r/w ss.21 and 29 - Smuggling and interstate trafficking 
A 
B 
of narcotic substances - A-3 allegedly carrying out operations C 
at the instance of A-2 - Large quantity of heroin seized from 
t.uck driven by A-4 in which A-3 was a/so traveling - A-3 and 
A-4 made statements revealing that buyer of the consignment 
was A-1 - Raid carried out which led to seizure of heroin and 
cash from residence of A-1 - Trial court convicted all the 
D 
accused - High Court upheld the conviction - Appeals by A-
1, A-3 and A-4 - Held: The prosecution had established that 
raid was conducted and the truck driven by A-4 intercepted 
and searched in course of which heroin was recovered from 
a bag kept under the seat on which A-3 was sitting - The 
E 
evidence on record totally belies the version belatedly 
advanced by both A-3 and A-4, that both or any one of them 
were/was unaware of the presence of the bag or its contents 
- Seizure of contraband from the residence of A-1 Tn raid is 
a/so established on the basis of evidence on record - The 
F 
accused-appellants cannot be given the benefit of doubt -
Both trial court as a/so the High Court minutely examined all 
aspects of the matter - No reason to interfere, all the more 
so when an appeal filed by A-2 against the judgment of High 
Gour.: '1as been already dismissed by Supreme Court -
G 
Constitut1L~11 of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
Criminal Jurisprudence - Proof beyond reasonable 
doubt - Degree of proof required - Held: It is true that the 
prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a 
121 
H 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 
A reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that the degree of 
proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt. 
According to the prosecution, A-2 was the kingpin of 
a syndicate involved in smuggling and interstate 
8 trafficking of narcotic substances and A-3 was carrying 
out the operations at the instance of A-2. 
On the basis of secret information received by the 
Anti-Terrorist Squad which was passed on to the 
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), a large quantity of 
C heroin was seized from a truck driven by A-4 in which A-
3 was also traveling. A-3 and A-4 made statements 
revealing that the consignment in question had been 
supplied by A-2 and that the buyer of the consignment 
was A-1. A-1 was taken into custody and his statement 
D under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) was recorded. A raid 
was then carried out which led to the seizure of heroin 
and cash from the residence of A-1. 
E 
The trial court eventually held all the accused guilty 
and convicted them under Section 8(c) read with 
Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The High Court 
upheld the conviction. An appeal filed by A-2 against the 
judgment of High Court has already been dismissed by 
F this Court. The instant appeals are filed by A-1, A-3 and 
A-4. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. There is no error or perversity in the view 
G taken by the Trial Court or the High Court for that matter 
to warrant interference under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. The prosecution had on the depositions of 
the witnesses examined by it and the documents 
produced at the trial, established that a raid based on the 
H secret information received by the Anti-Terrorist Squad 
IQBAL MOOSA PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
123 
which was passed on to the Narcotic Control Bureau was 
A 
Indeed conducted and truck bearing registration number 
RJ-04-G-1305 was intercepted and searched. In the. 
course of the said search 3.056 kgs. of heroin was 
recovered from the possession of A-4 who was driving 
the truck and A·3 accompanying him. The heroin was 
B 
recovered from tne bag that was kept under the seat on 
which A·3 traveling with him in the truck was sitting. The 
evidence on record totally belies the version belatedly 
advanced by both A-3 and A-4, that both or any one of 
them were/was unaware of the presence of the bag or its c 
contents. [Para 11] [130-F-H; 131-A-C] 
1.2. So also the seizure of the contraband from the 
residence of A-1 in a raid is established on the basis of 
the evidence on record. The argument urged on behalf 
of the A-1 that the house from where recovery was made 
D 
was not in his exclusive po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.