Introduction

Nazmunisha Etc. v. The State of Gujarat (2024 INSc 290) is a pivotal judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 9, 2024. This case revolves around the stringent application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly focusing on the procedural compliance under Sections 41, 42, and 67 during search and seizure operations. The appellants, Smt. Nazmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu, were convicted under the NDPS Act but challenged their convictions citing procedural lapses and the inadmissibility of confessional statements.

The key issues in this case pertain to:

• The compliance with statutory procedures under the NDPS Act during search and seizure.
• The admissibility and weight of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
• Interpretation of precedents related to NDPS Act compliance.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court scrutinized the convictions of Smt. Nazmunisha and Abdul Hamid Chandmiya under Sections 29, 20(b)(ii)(c), and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The appellants contended that the search and seizure at their residence were conducted without adhering to the mandatory procedural safeguards mandated by the NDPS Act. Specifically, they argued that the search was initiated based on limited information that did not extend to their residence, thereby violating Sections 41(2) and 42 of the Act.

The High Court of Gujarat had upheld the convictions, emphasizing that the statements of the accused were voluntary and corroborated by other evidence. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, highlighting significant procedural lapses in the search operation and questioning the credibility of the confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the convictions of the High Court and the Trial Court.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that have shaped the interpretation of procedural compliance under the NDPS Act:

• Tofan Singh v. State Of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1: This case established that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional statements because they do not meet the threshold of confessions under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Karnail Singh v. State Of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539: Emphasized the necessity of both recording the information in writing and immediately informing the superior officer to comply with Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act.
• Balbir Singh v. State Of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 219: Highlighted that concurrent findings of facts by lower courts should not be interfered with unless there's a prima facie perversity or absurdity.
• Chhunna Alias Mehtab v. State Of M.P. (2002) 9 SCC 363: Dealt with non-compliance of statutory requirements under the NDPS Act and vitiated the trial.
• Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465: Clarified the concept of constructive possession under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning focused on the strict adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act, especially during search and seizure operations. The Court examined whether the authorities complied with Sections 41(2) and 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandate the recording of information and immediate communication with superior officers before conducting searches or seizures.

The Court found that the search conducted at the residence of the appellants was not a direct continuation of the initial raid on the auto rickshaw based on the secret information provided. There was a 40-45 minute interval between the two search operations, indicating separate transactions rather than a single continuous event. This separation failed to meet the criteria established in Gentela Vijyvardhan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 6 SCC 241, which requires the search to be part of the same transaction based on spontaneity and immediacy.

Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, referencing the ruling in Tofan Singh v. State Of Tamil Nadu. It held that such statements, recorded during the enquiry phase, do not qualify as confessions and thus should not be used to convict the accused. This was pivotal in nullifying the reliance on statements that formed the core of the prosecution's case.

The inconsistencies in testimonies, particularly those of Mr. Tomar and PW-01, further weakened the prosecution's stance, leading the Court to conclude that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for future cases under the NDPS Act by reinforcing the necessity of strict procedural compliance during search and seizure operations. It underscores that any deviation from the mandatory procedures, such as delays in recording information or failure to immediately inform superior officers, can render the search operations illegal and, consequently, any evidence obtained therein inadmissible.

Additionally, the ruling clarifies the status of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, aligning with Tofan Singh by deeming them inadmissible as confessional statements. This limits the prosecution's reliance on such statements, thereby strengthening the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Law enforcement agencies are now urged to meticulously adhere to procedural safeguards to ensure that search and seizure operations withstand judicial scrutiny. Any lapses could not only jeopardize the admissibility of evidence but also the viability of the prosecution's case.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985

Section 41: Grants the authority to magistrates and designated gazetted officers to issue warrants for the arrest of individuals suspected of committing offenses under the NDPS Act. It also allows these officers to authorize subordinates to conduct searches and seizures.

Section 42: Empowers authorized officers to conduct search and seizure operations without a warrant, provided they have either personal knowledge or information from a credible source about the presence of contraband. This section mandates that information must be recorded in writing and immediately communicated to a superior officer, especially when searches extend beyond the initial premises.

Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985

This section empowers officers to conduct inquiries related to contraventions of the NDPS Act, including the authority to call for information and examine individuals. However, statements made under this section are not considered confessions and are thus inadmissible for conviction purposes under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

This section deals with confessions and dictates that no confession made by an accused person is sufficient to convict unless it is made voluntarily. Statements coerced or obtained under duress are inadmissible.

Constructive Possession

Defined under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, constructive possession refers to situations where an individual may not have direct physical control over contraband but has the power and intention to exercise control over it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Nazmunisha Etc. v. The State of Gujarat serves as a clarion call for stringent adherence to procedural mandates within the NDPS Act. By overturning the High Court's and Trial Court's convictions due to procedural non-compliance and questioning the admissibility of certain statements, the Court has reinforced the sanctity of the legal process and the rights of the accused.

This ruling not only impacts future NDPS Act cases but also serves as a benchmark for criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing that while combating drug-related offenses is imperative, it must not come at the expense of fundamental legal safeguards. Ensuring that law enforcement agencies meticulously follow prescribed procedures is essential to uphold justice and maintain public trust in the legal system.