Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 8(c), 18(b) — Possession — Conscious possession — Proof — Principle of parity — Where two accused were jointly tried for possession of 5.5 kg opium, common evidence was led and conviction recorded against both — High Court later acquitted one co-accused (A-1) on ground that prosecution failed to establish conscious possession, holding evidence of mediators and Excise officials inconsistent and not specifying which accused was carrying the handbag containing contraband — State did not challenge acquittal of A-1 — Held, in such circumstances, on principle of parity, benefit of acquittal must equally extend to A-2 (appellant herein) since prosecution case, evidence and incident were identical — Conviction and sentence of A-2 unsustainable — A-2 acquitted.
Criminal Trial — Parity — Principle of parity — When co-accused are tried together on the basis of common evidence, and acquittal of one accused has attained finality due to failure of prosecution to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt, the other accused is entitled to same benefit of doubt unless distinguishing circumstances exist.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 386 — Appeal against conviction — Appellate court’s power — Acquittal of co-accused in subsequent appeal — Applicability of parity principle — Acquittal of A-1 by High Court not challenged by State — Appellant A-2, convicted on same evidence, entitled to acquittal.
held : Appeal allowed — Appellant (A-2) acquitted — Conviction and sentence set aside — Bail bonds cancelled; sureties discharged.
2025 INSC 1180
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2016
VADDI RATNAM …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on
01.01.2002, the State Task Force Prohibition and Excise
Inspector accompanied by other officials, while on patrolling
duty near Dayamani Restaurant, Kathipudi village, noticed
two women, namely, the appellant herein (“Accused no.2”)
and the co-accused Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi (“Accused no.1”)
proceeding on foot. The co-accused was seen carrying a
yellow handbag, which she immediately handed over to the
appellant herein, upon noticing the raid party. Both the said
accused persons tried to flee from the spot however they were
2
successfully apprehended. Upon enquiry, they disclosed that
the handbag contained opium. A search of the bag yielded six
packets of opium, out of which five contained one kilogram of
opium each, and the sixth contained half a kilogram of
opium. During interrogation, both the accused persons stated
that they were engaged in the opium trade and disclosed that
the contraband had been procured from Anaparthi for resale.
2. Based on the aforesaid facts, Crime No.466 of 2001-02
came to be registered with the Prohibition and Excise Station
Prathipadu, District East Godavari, against the appellant
herein and the co-accused under Section 8(c) read with
Section 9 (vi) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1958 (for short, “NDPS Act”).
3. The Special Sessions Court for Trial of Cases under the
NDPS Act (Ist Additional Sessions Court), East Godavari at
Rajahmundry (for short, “Trial Court”) framed charges under
Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act. On
recording evidence, vide judgment and order dated
14.10.2005 in N.D.P.S. S.C No.14 of 2002, the Trial Court
convicted the appellant herein and the co-accused under
3
Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act, and
imposed a minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a
period of ten years each. They were further directed to pay a
fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment of 2.5 years each.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred Criminal
Appeal No.1775 of 2005 before the High Court of Judicature
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The High Court, by the
impugned judgment dated 04.01.2013, dismissed the
criminal appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the
conviction and sentence imposed by the order of the Trial
Court dated 14.10.2005. While dismissing the said criminal
appeal, the High Court observed that the Inspector of
Prohibition and Excise, State Task Force, Hyderabad (PW5),
Superintendent Inspector (PW3) and the Panchayat Secretary
(PW1, who was also a mediator for the seizure of contraband
from the accused), all supported the version of the
prosecution and also confirmed the alleged possession of the
contraband by the accused persons. Reference was also made
to the chemical examiner’s report which opined that the
4
samples of the seized contraband were opium. Therefore, the
High Court concluded that the prosecution was able to
establish the recovery of a commercial quantity of opium from
the possession of the accused persons.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.01.2013
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Appeal No.1870/2005, the appellant is before this Court. As
noted above, by the said judgment, the High Court has
affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by
the Special Court (N.D.P.S. Act-cum-I Additional Sessions
Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry) in N.D.P.S.S.C. No.14
of 2002 on 14.10.2005.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State
fairly submitted that insofar as the co-accused is concerned
(accused no.1), the High Court by its judgment dated
20.06.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1775/2005
acquitted accused no.1. A copy of the said judgment is also
submitted before this Court. He further submitted that as
against the said judgment of acquittal, the State has not
5
taken steps to assail the same. However, insofar as accused
no.2 is concerned, by the impugned judgment which was
passed earlier to the aforesaid judgment acquitting accused
no.1, the appellant herein has been convicted and the
sentence imposed by the Special Court has also been
affirmed.
7. In response to this submission, appellant’s counsel drew
our attention to the fact that both the accused were
implicated in respect of the very same incident; that common
evidence was led in the trial insofar as both the accused are
concerned; that when the High Court has acquitted accused
no.1 by judgment dated 20.06.2014 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.1775/2005 and the State has accepted the said
judgment, on the principle of parity, the appellant
herein/accused no.2 may also be granted the relief of
acquittal by setting aside the impugned judgment. He
therefore, submitted that taking into consideration the
judgment passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1775/2005 dated 20.06.2014 and by applying the
principle of parity, the impugned judgment may be set aside
6
and the appellant herein/accused no.2 may also be
acquitted.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar.
We have perused the judgment dated 20.06.2014 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1775/2005 by the High Court while
acquitting accused no.1. The relevant portion of the said
judgment reads as under: -
“19. Yet another contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant is that the conscious
possession of the contraband with the appellant was
not proved by the prosecution. The appellantaccused along with another person was tried for
possession of Opium. It is the case of the prosecution
that one of the ladies, who was carrying the bag
containing Opium, shifted her bag to the other lady
on seeing the police. But the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the person who actually
carried the said bag and who actually transferred the
said bag to the other lady. P.W.1 who was the
mediator, in his chief examination deposed as
follows:
“The accused present in the Court hail are
the persons arrested by the Excise Police in
our presence. He does not remember from
whose possession the handbag containing
Opium was seized and which of the accused
was holding M.O.1 bag containing Opium,
for the first time, they noticed them.”
P.Ws.1 and 2, who are mediators to Ex.P1-
mediators’ report turned hostile. The prosecution is
not clear as to the person who was in conscious
possession of the contraband. This is a case wherein
on conviction minimum 10 years of imprisonment is
to be imposed on a person who committed the
7
crime. In such serious offence, basing on the weak
piece of evidence, it is highly unsafe to convict a
person for the said offence. Even P.W.5 – who is
Prohibition & Excise Inspector has stated that a
person who was wearing a white saree was holding
the yellow coloured bag and on seeing them, she
handed over the said bag to the other lady. Even the
evidence of P.W.5 is not specific as to the culprit,
who was holding the bag and who transferred the
said bag to another lady. The evidence of the Excise
Officials do not clearly establish that the appellant
was in conscious possession of the said bag. In this
background of the matter, this Court feels that it is
not safe to convict the appellant for the said offence.
20. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of
the view that the trial Court has utterly failed to
consider all the above aspects in a proper perspective
and as such, the conviction and the sentence
imposed against the appellant, are liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, the point is answered.
21. In this result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed
setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by
the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge,
East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, against the
appellant-A1 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w
18(b) of the NDPS Act in N.D.P.S.S.C. No.14 of 2002
vide judgment dated 14.10.2005. Consequently, the
appellant-A1 is acquitted for the said charge. The
fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the
appellant-A1. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled and
the sureties are discharged.”
9. Since the aforesaid judgment has not been assailed by
the State, we think it is just and necessary to apply the
principle of parity because the complaint as against both the
8
accused is one and same and a joint trial was conducted in
respect of both the accused, common evidence was let in and
on the basis of appreciation of the said evidence, the High
Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted
accused no.1. In the circumstances, we find that justice
would be served in the case if the appellant herein/accused
no.2 is also acquitted. Hence, it is unnecessary to
reappreciate the evidence on record insofar as this appellant
is concerned. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed
by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1870/2005 as well
as in N.D.P.S.S.C. No.14 of 2002 dated 14.10.2005 are set
aside insofar as the appellant herein is concerned.
10. This Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms by
acquitting the appellant herein/accused no.2 of all offences
charged under Section 8(c) read with 18 (b) of the N.D.P.S.
Act vide Crime No.466 of 2001-02.
11. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is on bail vide
interim order dated 03.10.2016. Her bail bonds hence stand
cancelled and the sureties are discharged.
9
Pending application (s) shall stand disposed of.
….…………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
……….……………………………J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 17, 2025
