LexMANOJ TEJRAJ JAIN versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 2437 : 2025 INSC 1090 Manoj Tejraj Jain v. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5179-5181 of 2024) 28 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby the appeals filed by the appellants herein were dismissed against the judgment of the trial court convicting them for offences u/ss.25A and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.25A, 29, 35, 54, 9A – Punishment for contravention of orders made u/s.9A – Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order 2013 – Case of prosecution that when ATS raided a godown, which was found to have been leased out to ‘NK’ (one of the four appellants), recovery of 55 boxes containing Ephedrine powder (a controlled substance used for manufacturing decongestant syrup) weighing 1364 kgs was made – Other three appellants- co-accused were implicated on the basis of the confessional statement of ‘NK’ made during aforesaid search and seizure – Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.25A and 29 – Appeals filed by the appellants, dismissed by High Court – Challenge to: Held: 1.1 Ephedrine is a controlled substance and its manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, possession, storage and consumption are subject to control as specified in the Order 2013 – The contravention of orders is made punishable u/s.25A. [Para 39] 1.2 Further, to fasten the liability u/s.29, the prosecution must prove that there was abetment; conspiracy denoting that there was meeting of mind between the owner and the other accused and common object and in pursuance of that common object an agreement took place to commit an offence; some overt act was 2438 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports done in furtherance of such agreement – When the above elements are present in the form of evidence, the liability u/s.25A and/or s.29 can be fastened on any person – The evidence means, the evidence in shape of police papers, as well as evidence recorded by the court during trial. [Paras 40, 41] 1.3 When the raid was carried out, ‘NK’ was found to be present at the place where the godown is situated – He was found to be in possession and control of the godown – The search undertaken ultimately resulted in recovery of 55 boxes of ephedrine powder weighing 1364 Kgs – On the basis of some evidence on record, it can be said that ‘NK’ was found to be in conscious possession of the contraband – Even if the panchas in whose presence the search was undertaken failed to support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile, it cannot be said that the entire recovery is unbelievable – Moreover, ‘NK’ failed to offer any explanation in his s.313, CrPC statement, except total denial – s.54 invoked so far as ‘NK’ is concerned – Therefore, High Court committed no error in affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court so far as NK is concerned, however his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. [Paras 43, 46-51, 70, 71] 1.4 As regards other co-accused persons, the mere alleged confessional statement of co-accused, ‘NK’ at the time of his arrest can also not be made the basis of conviction – Statement of ‘NK’ sought to be relied upon is not one recorded under s.67 – When the raid was carried out at the godown and ‘NK’ was apprehended, at that point of time his statement was recorded – This statement said to have been made by ‘NK’ has no evidentiary value. [Paras 61, 64] 1.5 Even otherwise, the Court should not start with the confession of an accused – The Court should first marshal the facts on record and look into the other legal evidence if any – It is only if the Court finds some legal evidence on record that it can bring the confession or use the confession of an accused in aid of such legal evidence – Other appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. [Paras 65, 73] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.35, 54 – Presumption of culpable mental state – Presumption from possession of illicit articles – ‘Rule or Principle of Foundational Facts’: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2439 Manoj Tejraj Jain v. State of Gujarat Held: Before the statutory presumption of culpable mental state could be validly invoked, the prosecution must
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.