Spread the love
Mohammed Fasrin v. State rep. by the Intelligence Officer (2019) 8 SCC 811
Case NameMohammed Fasrin v. State rep. by the Intelligence Officer (2019) 8 SCC 811
Equivalent Citation2019 Latest Caselaw 900 SC
Date Of Judgement04.09.2019
CourtSupreme Court of India
AppellantMohammed Fasrin
RespondentSTATE REP. BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
BenchJustice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose

The case of Mohammed Fasrin v. State rep. by the Intelligence Officer, as reported in (2019) 8 SCC 811, is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India that addresses critical issues related to criminal law, procedural safeguards, and the rights of the accused in the context of narcotic drug offences. The prosecution’s case was primarily built on the recovery of substantial quantities of narcotic substances from the appellant, leading to charges under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, which mandates severe penalties for drug-related offences. Key legal questions in this case revolved around the procedural compliance required under the NDPS Act, particularly the adherence to mandatory safeguards during the search, seizure, and arrest of individuals accused of drug trafficking. The appellant challenged the prosecution on grounds of procedural lapses and violations of his rights under the law, arguing that such infractions vitiated the entire investigation and subsequent trial.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On January 4, 2003, a critical operation was undertaken by the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) based on specific information received regarding the trafficking of heroin. The tip-off suggested that a substantial quantity of heroin was being transported in a Toyota Qualis vehicle along the Madurai-Alagar Koil Road in Tamil Nadu.

Acting promptly on the intelligence, a team led by the Intelligence Officer set up a checkpoint near Tamil Nadu Hotel. At approximately 8:30 PM, the targeted Toyota Qualis, bearing No.TN 31 C 9117 was intercepted. This vehicle was apprehended when it was parked at Tamil Nadu Hotel of Madurai – Alagar Koil road.The vehicle was occupied by five individuals- Mohammed Fasrin (the appellant), Hasan Mohamed (A-2), and three others (A-3 to A-5). Upon inspection, the officers discovered 7.4 kilograms of heroin concealed in the vehicle. The heroin was found hidden beneath the rear seat of the Toyota Qualis. The NCB team seized the heroin and arrested all five individuals on the spot.

During the initial interrogation, Hasan Mohamed (A-2) provided a detailed account of the operation. The mentioned how he met Mohamed in Bombay, another individual, and how he received instructions to travel from Bombay to Manglapuram. He was invited once more to the Hotel Airline in Manglapuram, where he encountered the previously mentioned Mohammed from Bombay. Mohammed from Bombay was the one who gave him the vehicle and informed him that 7.4 kg of heroin is kept concealed in 7 packages in a constructed compartment under the front seat. After that, the co- accused was to deliver the Heroine to the Nalliappan and from there it was to handed over to the accused. Following Hasan Mohamed’s confession, the officers interrogated Mohammed Fasrin. The five accused were charged under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. 

The Special Court found Mohammed Fasrin and the other accused guilty of the charges. Fasrin was convicted under sections 8(c), 21, 23(c), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and was fined ₹1,50,000. In default of payment of the fine, he was to undergo an additional year of simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Madras High Court on February 19, 2008. Fasrin then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the findings of the lower courts and the admissibility of the evidence used against him.

ISSUES RAISED

  1. Whether the confessions made by Fasrin and Hasan Mohamed were voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.
  2. Whether there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the confessions and establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. Whether the officers conducted the search and seizure in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 42, including the recording of reasons for the search and obtaining necessary authorizations.
  4. Whether the accused were informed of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as mandated by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
  5. Neither the said Mohammed from Bombay nor Nalliappan have been examined in the case nor they have been arrayed as accused. Therefore, the link evidence is totally missing.

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner’s Arguments-

  • The appellant contended that his confessional statement and that of the co-accused, Hasan Mohamed, were obtained under duress and coercion, making them inadmissible as evidence. The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that these confessions were made voluntarily.
  • They highlighted that there was no independent corroborative evidence to support the confessional statements. They argued that the prosecution’s case relied solely on these statements without any external validation, which is insufficient for a conviction under the NDPS Act. They questioned the credibility of the testimonies provided by the NCB officers involved in the operation.
  • They pointed out inconsistencies in the documentation and handling procedures of the seized drugs, which could compromise the evidence’s reliability.
  • They argued that the officers did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Section 42 requires officers to record the reasons for their belief before conducting a search, and Section 50 mandates that the accused be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer.
  • They contended that neither the said Mohammed from Bombay nor Nalliappan have been examined in the case nor they have been arrayed as accused. Therefore, the link evidence is totally missing.

Respondent’s Arguments-

  • They argued that the confessions made by Mohammed Fasrin and Hasan Mohamed were voluntary and made without any coercion. They presented these confessions as crucial evidence linking the accused to the crime. It was contended that the confessional statements were admissible under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which allows officers to record statements during an investigation.
  • They maintained that the confessions were corroborated by other pieces of evidence, including the physical seizure of heroin and the testimonies of the officers involved. They defended the credibility and reliability of the testimonies given by the NCB officers, arguing that they followed proper procedures during the search, seizure, and interrogation processes.
  • The prosecution highlighted that the seized narcotics were documented and handled according to the established guidelines, ensuring no tampering occurred.
  • It was contended that the search and seizure operations were conducted in full compliance with the statutory provisions, thus upholding the legality of the actions taken by the officers.
  • It was argued that the sentencing followed the legal guidelines and principles laid down for offenses under the NDPS Act, ensuring a fair and just punishment.

JUDGEMENT/ANALYSIS

The Court scrutinized the confessional statements of Mohammed Fasrin and the co-accused Hasan Mohamed. It emphasized that for a confession to be admissible, it must be made voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence. The Court found that the prosecution did not convincingly establish that the confessions were voluntary. The Court reiterated that confessions require corroboration by independent evidence, especially in serious offenses under the NDPS Act. The lack of such corroboration in this case weakened the prosecution’s case significantly. The Supreme Court noted the absence of independent corroborative evidence supporting the confessional statements. The Court examined the chain of custody of the seized heroin and found inconsistencies and lapses in the documentation and handling of the narcotics. These lapses raised serious doubts about the integrity and reliability of the seized evidence. The court stated that these procedural lapses were significant and affected the legality of the search and seizure operations. Non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions was a crucial factor in the Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against Mohammed Fasrin beyond a reasonable doubt. The significant procedural lapses, the questionable voluntariness of the confessional statements, and the lack of independent corroborative evidence collectively led to the Court’s decision to overturn the conviction. The Court acquitted Mohammed Fasrin of all charges under the NDPS Act, setting aside the lower court’s judgments. The judgment ordered the immediate release of Mohammed Fasrin, acknowledging the failure of the prosecution to establish a case against him.

CONCLUSION

The case of Mohammed Fasrin v. State Rep. by the Intelligence Officer underscores the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal prosecutions under the NDPS Act. The reliance on confessional statements, particularly those of co-accused individuals, without independent verification, was deemed insufficient to secure a conviction. This judgment reinforces the necessity for rigorous standards of proof in cases involving serious criminal charges, ensuring that convictions are based on robust and reliable evidence.

REFERENCE

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142445524

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=009102237100

This Article is written by Shruti Suman, student of Thakur Ramnarayan College Of Law, Mumbai University.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *