RATAN KUMAR VISHWAS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

CITATION	AIR 2009 SC 581
DATE OF JUDGMENT	7th November, 2008
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	E. Micheal Raj
RESPONDENT	State of U.P. and Ors.
BENCH	Dr. Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker and Devinder Kumar Jain, JJ.

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Ratan Kumar Vishwas vs. State of U.P. and Ors revolves around allegations of involvement in the illicit trade of Charas. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Ratan Kumar Vishwas was aware of the transportation and sale of Charas, implicating him in the illegal activity. The case involved the seizure of Charas, statements recorded under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and follow-up actions to establish the guilt of the accused individuals. The court’s judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the evidence presented and the provisions of the relevant laws governing drug offenses.

FACTS:

On 5th March 2004, a secret and reliable information was received by an officer of the N.C.B., Varanasi, stating that a significant amount of Charas was being transported from Nepal to Kanpur in Truck No. UHN 9137. The truck was reported to be parked at Kanodia Auto Centre, located on the Lucknow-Kanpur bypass road, and was registered under Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai, son of Srikant Bajpai, residing at 127/333, Nirala Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.

Intelligence Officers, along with other officials, proceeded to the location and found three individuals inside the truck named Bhola Prasad, Shambhu Prasad, and Lalji Yadav. Bhola Prasad identified himself as the driver, Lalji as the cleaner, and Shambhu Prasad as the owner of the truck. Shambhu Prasad mentioned that upon reaching a petrol pump in Kanpur, he was supposed to contact Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai. The officers disclosed their identities to the individuals in the truck and requested their presence during the search.

ISSUES RAISED:

The main issue in the case was the alleged involvement of the accused individuals, including Ratan Kumar Vishwas, in the illicit trade of Charas. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Ratan Kumar Vishwas was aware of the transportation of Charas and his association with the trade. 

The case also involved issues related to the search, seizure of the illegal substance, and the subsequent legal proceedings, including the recording of statements and the follow-up actions taken by the authorities. The central focus of the case was on proving the guilt of the accused individuals in connection with the illegal trade of Charas.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PROSECUTION:

The prosecution contended that Ratan Kumar Vishwas admitted his involvement in the illicit trade of Charas during the investigation.

It was argued that Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai arranged for the Charas to be sold through Ratan Kumar Vishwas and that money was exchanged between individuals involved in the trade.

The prosecution presented evidence regarding the search, seizure, and transportation of the illegal substance, along with statements recorded from the accused individuals.

The prosecution sought to establish the involvement of Ratan Kumar Vishwas through various means, including phone records and follow-up actions at his residence.

CONTENTIONS BY THE DEFENCE:

The defence likely argued against the allegations of involvement in the illicit trade of Charas, stating that Ratan Kumar Vishwas was not the owner, purchaser, or seller of the illegal substance and that there was no recovery from him.

It may have been contended that the conviction was based solely on the statements of co-accused individuals and that the evidence presented was inadmissible.

The defence might have raised concerns about the circumstances under which statements were recorded and the alleged torture of the appellant to obtain a false confessional statement.

Additionally, the defence may have challenged the application of Section 37 of the Act following the declaration of Section 32A as ultra vires.

THE JUDGMENT BY THE COURT:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The court noted that the appellant was found absconding during a follow-up action, leading to the recording of a statement from his son, which further implicated the appellant in the case.

The court considered the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, which restrict bail for offenses under the Act, especially those involving commercial quantities of drugs. The court rejected the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, emphasizing that the conviction was based on admissible evidence and that the appellant’s involvement was sufficiently established.

The court highlighted that the powers of the appellate court to suspend a sentence are subject to the conditions specified in Section 37 of the Act. 

The court disposed of the writ petitions, clarifying that Section 32A does not affect the authorities’ power to grant parole and emphasizing the importance of complying with the conditions outlined in Section 37 for the suspension of a sentence.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the case of Ratan Kumar Vishwas vs. State of U.P. and Ors involved the appellant’s alleged involvement in the illicit trade of Charas. The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court rejected the appellant’s plea for suspension of sentence and bail, emphasizing the stringent conditions outlined in Section 37 of the Act for such relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with legal provisions related to drug offenses and the suspension of sentences. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction of the appellant, underscoring the seriousness of drug-related crimes and the need to adhere to the legal framework governing such offenses.

REFERENCE

1. Manupatra 
2. https://indiankanoon.org

This Article is written by Ramendra Singh student of CPJ CHS & SoL, GGSIPU; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

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.