The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Telangana High Court acquitted a co-accused in a drug trafficking case, underscoring that guilt cannot be established through mere suspicion or association. The judgment in Srinivasula Varalaxmi vs. State of Telangana highlights the necessity for the prosecution to conclusively prove a co-accused’s knowledge of concealed contraband.
Case Background
The case stemmed from an anonymous tip-off received by Air Customs officials at Hyderabad’s RGI Airport in 2012. Two passengers, Pattani (A1) and Srinivasula Varalaxmi (A2), were intercepted while boarding a flight to Bangkok. A search revealed a false compartment in A1’s checked-in suitcase containing 2 kg of ketamine hydrochloride. Both were charged under Sections 23(c) read with 28 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
While the trial court convicted both A1 and A2, the High Court differentiated their roles. Justice K. Surender noted, “Suspicion and/or assumption cannot form the basis to find A2 guilty when her complicity isn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Key Legal Arguments and Court’s Analysis
The prosecution relied on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, the High Court reiterated that confessions made to customs officers (non-police) are inadmissible as evidence. The trial court’s reliance on these statements to implicate A2 was deemed erroneous.
The defense argued non-compliance with Section 52-A, which mandates inventorying, photographing, and sampling seized drugs in the presence of a magistrate. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the High Court clarified:
“Non-compliance with Section 52-A isn’t fatal unless the accused demonstrates prejudice. The prosecution’s failure to follow procedures doesn’t invalidate the case if other evidence substantiates guilt.”
Samples in this case were drawn in the presence of gazetted officers, and the chain of custody was documented, leading the Court to reject this ground.
Critical to A2’s acquittal was the absence of proof linking her to the concealed drugs. Though A2 traveled with A1 and shared a PNR number, the Court observed:
“Merely traveling together or having clothes in A1’s bag doesn’t establish knowledge of the concealed compartment. The prosecution failed to investigate how or when the drugs were hidden or whether A2 was aware.”
No material evidence, such as fingerprints or witness testimonies, connected A2 to the ketamine.
The High Court acquitted A2, extending the “benefit of doubt” due to insufficient evidence. However, A1’s conviction was upheld as the ketamine was found in his baggage, and his confession under Section 67, though inadmissible for A2, supported his culpability.
Thus, A2 was acquitted. The appeal filed by A1 was dismissed.
Case Name: Srinivasula Varalaxmi vs. State of Telangana
Counsel for Petitioners: P. Manoj Kumar (for Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu)
Counsel for Respondent: M. Vivekananda Reddy (Asst. Public Prosecutor)
