Lorik Ram vs The State Of Assam

Background and Factual Matrix:

In this case, the accused, Lorik Ram, was employed as a truck driver by VRS Logistics Ltd, one of the largest fleet owners in India. The applicant's responsibility was to transport goods for the company from its transshipment point at Gorchuk, Guwahati to Agartala. As per the duty sheet and roaster plan, the truck was loaded with 10 cartons of mouthwash, which were intended for delivery to a medical agency in Varanasi. During a police interception at the Churaibari Watch Post, located on National Highway 08, 13 cartons of Escuf Syrup (totaling 4,000 bottles) and 10 boxes of Phensedyl Cough Syrup (3,000 bottles) were recovered from the truck. The syrups contained codeine phosphate, a substance regulated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Consequently, the applicant, along with his co-accused, was charged under Sections 22(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, which deal with the possession, trafficking, and transportation of narcotic substances.

Arguments:

Applicant's Submissions:

1)Lack of Knowledge: The applicant argued that he was merely carrying out his duty as a truck driver for VRS Logistics Ltd., and had no knowledge of the nature of the contents in the consignment. His responsibility was limited to the transport of goods from one location to another, and he had no awareness that narcotics or controlled substances were part of the consignment.

2)Quantity Below Commercial Threshold: The applicant further submitted that the amount of codeine phosphate in the seized syrups was 600 grams (or 0.6 kg), which was below the commercial quantity threshold as defined under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act, which imposes stricter bail conditions for commercial quantities of narcotics, should not apply in this case.

Respondent's Submissions:

1) Commercial Quantity: The respondent contended that the total quantity of Escuf Syrup and Phensedyl Cough Syrup amounted to a commercial quantity of codeine phosphate under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the applicant’s bail should not be granted without the completion of the investigation, as the seriousness of the offense required further scrutiny.

2) Narcotic Suppliers Misusing VRL Logistics: The respondents also argued that narcotic peddlers had misused the vehicles of VRS Logistics Ltd. to transport illicit substances, and that the applicant’s involvement in this scheme required further investigation.

Court's Analysis and Decision:

1)Role of the Applicant: The court emphasized that the applicant’s role was limited to that of a truck driver for a logistics company. The goods loaded in the truck bore the official seal and packaging of VRS Logistics Ltd., and the truck was scheduled for delivery based on a duty sheet and roster plan provided by the company. The court observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant had any involvement in the illicit act of misusing the company's trucks for transporting narcotic substances.

2)Lack of Knowledge or Intention: The court reiterated that knowledge and intent are key determinants of criminal liability, especially in cases under the NDPS Act. There was no evidence that the applicant had any awareness that the consignment he was transporting contained codeine phosphate-based cough syrup or any other controlled substances. Since the applicant was simply discharging his duty, and there was no indication of his knowledge or involvement in the illicit act, the court ruled that he could not be held liable under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.

3)Section 37 of the NDPS Act: Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stricter conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances. However, the court found that the seized quantity of codeine phosphate (600 grams) was below the commercial threshold under the NDPS Act, and thus, the provisions of Section 37 did not apply to the applicant's case.

4)Investigation Status: While the investigation was still ongoing, the court noted that the allegation that narcotic suppliers had misused the VRS Logistics vehicles for trafficking narcotics remained subject to investigation. However, the facts of the case did not establish any concrete evidence against the applicant for his involvement in such illegal activities.

5)Bail Conditions: Given the lack of direct involvement of the applicant in the offense and the absence of any evidence of knowledge or intent, the court granted bail to the applicant. The court, however, imposed certain conditions to ensure that the applicant would cooperate with the investigation:

1.   a)The applicant was required to furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.
2.   b)The applicant was directed to cooperate with the investigating officer whenever necessary.
3. c)The applicant and his sureties were required to submit identity documents such as Voter Identity Cards or Permanent Residential Certificates.




4. Key Takeaways:
   1)Knowledge and Intent: The case reinforces the importance of knowledge and intent in determining criminal liability under the NDPS Act. If an accused person was unaware of the nature of the contraband being transported, they may not be held liable under the Act’s stringent provisions
5. 2).Application of Section 37: Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stricter conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, only applies if the seized quantity meets the threshold for commercial quantity. In this case, the amount of codeine phosphate was below the commercial quantity threshold, and therefore, the provisions of Section 37 did not apply.
6. 3)Employer Responsibility: The case also highlights the importance of investigating whether a logistics company’s vehicles were misused by criminal elements. While the applicant was not directly involved in the trafficking, the company itself could potentially be held responsible for allowing its vehicles to be misused.
7. 4)Bail in NDPS Cases: Courts have shown willingness to grant bail even in NDPS cases if the applicant’s involvement is not substantiated by evidence of knowledge or intent regarding the illicit substances. This case illustrates that mere transport of goods without knowledge of the illicit contents is not enough to attract the harsh provisions of the NDPS Act.




8. Conclusion: In the case of Lorik Ram v. The State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court granted bail to the applicant, recognizing the lack of evidence linking him to any illicit activity. The judgment highlighted the importance of intent and knowledge in criminal liability and clarified that Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply unless there was evidence of commercial quantity or direct involvement in the trafficking activities. The Court's decision emphasizes the principle of fairness in criminal justice and the need for concrete evidence when applying the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.