SURINDER KUMAR KHANNA versus INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 31-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
SURINDER KUMAR KHANNA
v.
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE
OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
(Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2018)
JULY 31, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.21
r/w. s.29 – Conviction of appellant under, based on confessional
statements of co-accused – Propriety of – Held: Confessional
statement of co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive
piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be
used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court – In the
present case, apart from the statements of co-accused there is no
material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in
question – In the absence of any substantive evidence, it would be
inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the
statements of co-accused – Orders of conviction and sentence
against the appellant set aside – Appellant acquitted – Evidence
Act, 1872 – ss.24, 25 and 27 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
Act, 1987 – s.15.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Unlike Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities Act, 1987 which specifically makes confession of a co-
accused admissible against other accused in certain eventualities;
there is no such similar or identical provision in the NDPS Act
making such confession admissible against a co-accused.
[Para 10] [344-D-E]
1.2  In the present case apart from the statements of co-
accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the
appellant in the crime in question. On the touchstone of law laid
down by Supreme Court such a confessional statement of a co-
accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 338
338
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
339
evidence against another co-accused and can at best be used or
utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court.  In the absence
of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the
conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-
accused.  The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of
the charges leveled against him. [Para 14] [347-F-H; 348-A]
Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar
[1964] 6 SCR 623 – followed.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] SCR
526 – relied on.
Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008) 4 SCC 668 :
[2008] 1 SCR 350 ; Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2013) 16 SCC 31 : [2013] 9  SCR 962 ; Bhuboni Sahu
v. The King (1949) 76 Indian Appeal 147 ; State v. Nalini
(1999) 5 SCC 253 : [1999] 3 SCR 1 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 1 SCR 350
    referred to
Para  7
[2013] 9 SCR 962
    referred to
Para  8
[1952] SCR 526
    relied on
Para  11
[1964] 6 SCR 623
    followed
Para 12
[1999] 3 SCR 1
    referred to
Para  13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 949 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.D-798-DB/2014.
Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Pahlad Singh Sharma, Ms. Kisalaya
Shukla, Krishna Kant Shukla, Reeja Varghese, Ketan Pant, Tushar
Bhushan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Maninder Singh, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Rohit Bhatt,
Prabhas Bajaj, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the
Respondent.
SURINDER KUMAR KHANNA  v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1 Special Leave to Appeal granted.
2. This appeal challenges the correctness of Judgment and Order
dated 21.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.798 of 2014 by which the High Court
affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPC Act’, for short).
3.     According to the Prosecution:-
a. On a specific information that narcotic drugs were going to be
transported from Jammu side to Chandigarh via Hoshiarpur in a
white colour Indica car bearing registration no.PB-02AJ-7288, the
officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short ‘DRI’)
laid picket at toll barrier at Hoshiarpur-Garhshankar road.  At 10:35
hours, they intercepted an Indica car of white colour which was
coming from Hoshiarpur side bearing registration No.PB-02AJ-
7288.  The car was being driven by one Raj Kumar @ Raju whereas
one 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.