Supreme Court Applies Parity Principle and Acquits Accused in Opium Possession Case

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal by a woman convicted for possession of a commercial quantity of opium, challenging the High Court’s affirmation of a Special Court’s conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The question before the Court was whether the appellant, who had been tried jointly with a co-accused, could be granted relief by parity after the co-accused was subsequently acquitted by the High Court.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act, holding that parity required the same result where common evidence and a joint trial existed and the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.”

Background

On January 1, 2002, members of the State Task Force (Prohibition and Excise) on patrol near Kathipudi village apprehended two women who, on seeing the raid party, were observed to have transferred a yellow handbag said to contain opium. A search produced six packets — five of one kilogram each and one of half a kilogram — which the chemical examiner reported as opium. Crime No.466 of 2001-02 was registered and charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act were framed. The Trial Court convicted both accused and imposed the statutory minimum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 each (default 2½ years’ simple imprisonment).

The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court, which, by order dated January 4, 2013, affirmed the Trial Court’s findings, relying on prosecution witnesses including the Prohibition and Excise Inspector and the chemical examiner’s report. A separate High Court judgment dated June 20, 2014, however, allowed the criminal appeal of the co-accused (accused no.1) and set aside her conviction; the High Court observed inter alia that “In such serious offence, basing on the weak piece of evidence, it is highly unsafe to convict a person for the said offence” and found that the prosecution failed to prove who was in conscious possession of the bag. The State did not challenge that acquittal.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellant urged that, given the joint trial and common evidence, the principle of parity required that the appellant also be acquitted. The State conceded that it had not assailed the acquittal of the co-accused. The Supreme Court held that, because the earlier acquittal stood unchallenged and the same evidence was the basis for both prosecutions, parity dictated the same outcome. The Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 (b) of the NDPS Act in Crime No.466 of 2001-02, set aside the impugned High Court and Trial Court orders insofar as the appellant was concerned, cancelled bail bonds and discharged sureties. Pending applications stood disposed of and any fine paid, if applicable, was to be refunded as per the operative directions.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2016 (2025 INSC 1180) Case Title: VADDI RATNAM v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Names not indicated in the judgment]