Holding

The Supreme Court held that the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not fulfilled; consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order denying bail and suspension of sentence stands.

Summary

Ratan Kumar Vishwas was convicted under Sections 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for trafficking charas and sentenced to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. He applied to the High Court for suspension of his sentence and bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, but the application was rejected. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the mandatory conditions of Section 37—reasonable doubt of guilt and likelihood of committing further offences—were satisfied, noting that Vishwas had already been found guilty. The Court also considered the impact of the Dadu v. State of Maharashtra decision, which held Section 32A ultra‑vires but did not affect the power to suspend sentences under Section 37. Concluding that the parameters of Section 37 were not met, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order denying bail and suspension of sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the conditions prescribed in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail or suspension of sentence are satisfied when the accused has already been convicted.
Whether the decision in Dadu v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437, declaring Section 32A ultra‑vires, affects the power to suspend a sentence under Section 37.
Whether a conviction based largely on statements of co‑accused and other corroborative evidence justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 389
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 27A, s. 29, s. 32A, s. 37

Subjects

NDPS ActSection 37bailsuspension of sentencedrug traffickingconvictionco‑accused statementsultra viresSection 32Acriminal procedure

Judgment

/
(2008] 15 S.C.R. 907

RATAN KUMAR VISHWAS A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1754 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 7, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- s.37 - Bail - Grant of - Accused found guilty of oft'ence C
under the Act - Application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail - Rejected by High Court -:- On appeal, Held:
High Court dealt with the factual position and concluded that
parameters of s.37 were not fulfilled to warrant grant of bail
- No reason to interfere in the matter. D

The appellant-accused was found guilty of
commission of offence under ss.27A and 29 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14
years. Appellant filed appeal before the High Court. He E
also filed an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail, which was rejected. Hence the instant
appeal."
1
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Td deal with the menace of dangerous
drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that
a person accused of offence under the Narcotic Drugs
Act and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 should not G.
be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory
conditions provided under s.37 that there are reasonable
grounds for holding that the accused is not guilty of such
offence and that -he is not likely to commit any offence
907 H
~-

908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

-4(
\
A while on bail are satisfied. So far as the first condition is ,,,b
concerned, apparently the accused was found guilty and
was convicted. The High Court dealt with the factual
position in· great detail to conclude that the parameters
of s.37 were not fulfilled to warrant grant of bail by
B suspension of sentence. There is no reason to interfere
in the matter. [Paras 16 and 17] (914-C-D; 915-B-C]
....,...
Dadu v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437, referred .
to. . ...
..,__
c Case Law Reference: ·
(2000) a sec 437 referred to Para 14 r~

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1754 of 2ooa:
D
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.5.2007 of the .--,,....
'\
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. •
.____
6636 of 2006.

S.D. Singh, Vijay Kumar, Rahul Kr. Singh and Aparna Jha
E
for the Appellant.

. B.B. S.ingh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Binu Tamta, Madhurima
Tatia, S.N. Terdal; B.V. Balaram Das, S.N. Pandey and C.P. .r-
Pandey for the Respondents. _...._
'---
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .,,

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned ~
~

G Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the
app:ication filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail. Appellant-Ratan Kumar Vishwas has filed an ..,,..
Appeal No. 6636 of 2006 questioning his conviction the offence
punishable· under Sections 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
H and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'). He
•
~ RATAN KUMAR VISHWAS v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 909
~
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
\ r"-
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years A
and to pay a fine cf rupees two lacs with default stipulation.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1,
Kanpur Nagar has found the appellar.t guilty and convicted and
sentenced him as aforesaid.
~ B
3. Brief facts of the case as projected by prosecution are
.....
that a secret and reliable information on 5.3.2004 was received
by the complainant an officer of the N.C.B., Varanasi that huge
quantity of Charas was being brought from Nepal to Kanpur in
Truck No. UHN 9137 and same was standing at Kanodia Auto
Centre, Lucknow Kanpur bypass road and it belonged to
c
Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai son of Srikant Bajpai, resident of 127/
333, Nirala Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. This information was reduced
to writing and thereafter Intelligence Officers, U.K. Singh and
y
K.K. Mishra along with S. Rallabhandi, S.K. Singh and R.K.
Gupta, also Intelligence Officers, Ramnath, sepoy with driver D
('

Vijendra Kumar, proceeded from camp office, Gujani in
departmental vehicle number U.P. 65-S-6951 and U.P 65-V-
7826 and reached near the Kanodia Auto Centre at about 9
p.m. Two persons standing nearby were called and they
disclosed their names as Rajendra Prasad and Ramjee Singh. E
After explaining the purpose for which they were requested to
be present i.e. during search, they agreed. At 9.05 p.m. a team
~ reached near the above truck and three persons were found
sitting inside the truck and on enquiry they disclosed their
" names as Bhola Prasad, Shambhu Prasad and Lalji Yadav. On F
asking Bhola Prasad disclosed that he was driver of the Truck
and La_lji was cleaner and Shambhu Prasad was owner of the
Truck and told that on reaching the petrol pump at Kanpur, he
had to contract Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai.on phone number 0512-
2616517. These officers gave their identity to these three G
.,, persons and asked them in writing if they desired their vehicle
to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate which was their legal right. But they declined in
writing and offered that the search be made by them. At this
the ~fficers of the N.C.B. searched the vehicle in accordance H
.
I

910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A with law and in the presence of two witnesses and· they found
black-colour plates wrapped in poly1hene 'kept in plastic bags ·
in specially made secret cavity behind the cabin of the Truck.
On testing with the test kit ppssessed by the N.C.B. Officers,
the recovered black colour plates were found to be Charas. The
B re.covered Charas was seized along with vehicle. However, due
to darkness and unavailability of weighing facility and for
security reasons, the vehicle and the arrested persons were
taken to. the Customs and Central Excise Office, Kanpur Nagar
where they reached at about 10.45 p.m. They recovered 14
c plastic bags wnich were weighed and the gross weight was
252.500 Kgs. and the·net weight was 250.400 Kgs. Two
samples of 25 grams each were drawn from all the 14 bags
and were marked and kept in separate sealed envelopes. All
the packets of samples were signed by the accused persons
0 and the witnesses and the officers of the N.C.B. The accused
Bhola Prasad, Shambhu Prasad admitted that they had to take
that Charas to Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai. They also told that
a~cused Govind Singh of Nepal State with the help of accused
Kamal and Virendra Kumar had visited Veerganj in Nepal few
E · . days earlier to meet Govind and to finalise the deal for Charas.

4: At that time, the recovery memo was also prepared
which was duly signed by the accused, witnesses· and the
officers of the N.C.B. Thereafter the officers of the N.C.B.,
independent witnesses Sri S.R. Agarwal, superintendent,
F Kailash Chandra, Inspector of Customs and Central Excise and
police force of Kidwai Nagar. reached the house of Akhilesh
Kumar Bajpai in Nirala Nagar at about 12.30 a.m. on 6.3.2004.
A person opened the door and disclosed this name as Akhilesh
Kumar Bajpai. The officers gave their introduction and also
G apprised him the purpose of visit and asked him in writing if
he desired his house to be searched in presence of Gazetted
Officer or a Magistrate which was his right. But he declined in
writing ~nd offered search to be made by them. House was
searched in accordance with law and in presence of the
H independent witnesses. Puring search of the house Jitendra
RATAN KUMAR VISHWAS v. STATE OF U.P. & ANP. 911
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Singh, Virendra Kumar and Govind Singh were found to be __ A ____ _
present there. These three persons were separately given in
writing if they wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer
or a Magistrate as it was their right but they declined. On search
of Virendra Kumar some papers were recovered.
B
5. Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai told that this Charas was
arranged by him to be sold through appellant-Ratan Kumar
Vishwas of Bharthana, District Etawah. He had given
Rs.20,000/- to Jitendra Kumar and Virendra Kµmar to be given
____________ to Kamal of Veerganj, Nepal, through Govind. Recovery memo C
was prepared at the house of Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai and was
signed by the witnesses and t~~ <>.fficers -~s well as the accused
persons.

6. The statements of the accused persons under Section
67 of the Act were recorded and they made their voluntary D
statement giving d~tails about their involvement in the trade of '
Charas. The seized Charas was sent to C.R.C., New Delhi for
chemical analysis through letter dated 6.3.2004 along with test
memo affixing specimen of the seal. The Chemical Examiner
gave his report dated 25.5.2004 and confirmed that the content E
of the samples was Charas. A detailed report about search and
seizure. was submitted to the superior officer on 6.3.2004. The
Charas and the truck were deposited in the office of the
Customs and Central Excise, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur.

7. On 19.3.2004 the follow up action was conducted at the F
residential premises of Ratan Kumar Vishwas at 42, Sarojni
Road, Bharthana, District Etawah. But he was found
absconding and statement of his son was recorded under
Section 67 of the Act and he disclosed the phone number as
05680-225182 which was installed in his house in the name G
of his father. The summons for appearance of Ratan Kumar
Vishwas was also served on him. The copies of the guest
register of the City Hotel and Babarchi Hotel, Veerganj, Nepal
were obtained which were attested by the First Secretary, High
Commission, Nepal and it showed that Govind had stayed· ti
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
,,, ~
\
A there on 21.2.2004. Call details of the phone of Akhilesh Kumar
Bajpai install.ed at his house were obtained from Mahanagar
·Telephone Exchange. Details of the visitors registers from
Manager, Mahalaxmi Lodge were also obtained and they
confirmed that Govind and Shambhu Prasad had stayed in the
B Lodge from 29.2.2004 to 5.3.2004. Voluntary statement of
Ratan Kumar Vishwas was recorded under Section 67 ·of the
Act on 19.4.2004 and he admitted his involvement in illicit trade -;.-
of Charas and that he was also aware of the consignment and
that he was also. aware of the consignment of the Charas
c transported by vehicle no. UHN 9137, which was seized by
N.B.G., Varanasi on 5.3.2004 at Kanodia Auto Centre. He was
also aware of the fact that Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai was bringing
the.consignment of Charas for sale in Rajasthan through him.
Akhilesh Kumar Bajpai used to contact him on his phone no.
05680-225182 through his phone No.0512-2616517. He also
D
disclosed that he had given Rs. 1.5 lacs to Diwakar resident
of Kidwai nagar for becoming a partner in the t_rade of Charas
and Diwakar purchased a Truck for supply of Charas from Nepal
to Indore and Rajasthan. Ratan Kumar Vishwas was arrested
on 19.4.2004.
E·
8. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
As accused persons abjured guilt trial was held.

9. To further the prosecution version, witnesses were
examined while one Rajesh Kumar was examined as DW-3.
F
As noted above, conviction was recorded and appeal has been
filed before the High Court.

10. In respect of the prayer for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail the preliminary stand was that the conviction is
G based on inadmissible evidence. It was submitted that the
appellant was not the owner and he was neither the purchaser
nor the seller and there was no recovery from him. His ~

conviction was based only on the statement of co-accused. The
High Court found that thi~ was not a case where the prayer for
H suspension of sentence is to be accepted. Accordingl¥,)he
RATAN KUMAR VISHWAS v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. t}l3
'to. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
f
prayer was rejected. A

11. In support of the appeal, the stand taken before the
High Court was re-iterated. Additionally, it was submitted that
the statement purportedly was made on 19.4.2004 in respect
of alleged incident dated 5.3.2004. On 22.4.2004 a telegram
B
... was. sent by DW-3 alleging that the appellant was tortured and
false confessional statement was recorded.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted
that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act cannot be applied to
the present case after Section 32-A of the Act was held to be c
ultra vires by this Court.

13. In response, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the conviction is based on the evidence of PWs
-.,.. 1, 2 and 3 in addition to the statement under Section 67 of the D
Act. It is pointed out that the appellant was found absconding
and, therefore, the statement of his son was recorded under
Section 67 of the Act. The telephone records were also verified
and it was noted that the involvement of the appellant was
sufficiently established.
E
14. It is to be noted that in Dadu v. State of Maharashtra
(2000 (8) sec 437) it was held that Section 32A was ultra
vires to the extent it took away the powers relatable to Section
389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the
Code') In Dadu's case (supra) it was held as follows :- F

"29. Under the circumstances the writ petitions are
disposed of by holding that : ·

(1) Section 32-A does not in any way affect the powers of
the authorities to grant parole. G
(2) It is unconstitutional to the extent it takes away the right
of the court to suspend the sentence of a convict under the
Act.
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A (3) Nevertheless, a sentence awarded under the Act can
be suspended by the appellate court only and strictly
·subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the Act,
as dealt with in this judgmenC'

15, fr\ :the said case it was clearly observed that a sentence
.B awarded under the Act .can be suspended by the Appellate ·
Goud only and strictly subject to the conditions as spelt out in -+
Section 37 of the Act. I

16. To deal with the menace of dangerous drugs flooding
C the market, Parliament has provided that a person accused of
offence under the Act should not be released on bail during trial
unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 that
there are reasonable grounds for holding that the accused is
not gui_lty of such office and that he is not likely to commit any,
D offence while on bail are satisfied. So far as the first condition.
is concerned, apparently the accused has been found guiltyanq
has been convicted. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows:-.·

"Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
E
. Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable;

F (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for
offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A
and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall
be released on bail or on his own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
G opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable
. grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence
.H and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
RATAN KUMAR VISHWAS v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 915
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause A
(b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under
the Code of Ciiminal Procedure, 1973 (2of1974) or any
other law for the time being in force, on grant of bail."

17. The High Court has dealt with the factual position in 8
great detail to conclude that the parameters ofSeclion 37 are'
not fulfilled to warrant grant of bail by suspension of sentence.
We find no reason to interfere in the matter. The High Court is
· requested to dispose of the Criminal Appeal pending before
it expeditiously.
c
.18. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted tr.at the
appellant is ailing and needs treatment. It is open to him to
move the appropriate authorities for providing such medical
treatment as is needed.
_o
19. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

D.G. Appeal dismissed.

'

'·