High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court

"The quashing of charges merely on the ground that a confessional statement cannot be relied on in the trial, would not be a proper exercise of the inherent powers conferred on the High Court." Supreme Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be invoked to quash criminal proceedings under the NDPS Act simply by relying on precedents that discuss the limited evidentiary value of confessional statements.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran emphasized that such contentions are premature at the stage of quashing and must instead be addressed during the trial or through an application for discharge.

Scope of Judicial Intervention

The bench observed that the High Court had improperly applied the ratios of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and other decisions to a pending prosecution. While those judgments clarified that statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as confessions to support a conviction, the Court clarified that this legal position does not automatically entitle an accused to the quashing of a criminal case at the preliminary stage.

Court Distinguishes Between Conviction and Quashing

The Supreme Court noted that the precedents relied upon by the High Court dealt with cases where the conviction was challenged or bail was sought, specifically where the prosecution’s case rested solely on confessional statements. The Court observed that the instant case involved an accused who fled from the spot where 32.615 kg of Ganja was seized from a vehicle, with his name already recorded in the First Information Statement.

Distinction Between Evidentiary Value and Investigation

The bench underscored that while a confessional statement under Section 67 or a disclosure statement under Section 53A of the NDPS Act cannot lead to a conviction, these statements serve as material for the Investigating Officer to gather further evidence. The Court held that the identification of an accused by co-accused in the FIS serves as a lead, and the sufficiency of the resultant evidence to warrant a trial is a matter to be tested before the Trial Court.

Appropriate Forum for Discharge

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the respondent free to challenge the lack of incriminating evidence at the appropriate legal juncture. The Court stated that the respondent may raise the contention of "no other material having been unearthed in the investigation" either when the Special Court considers the framing of charges or by filing a formal application for discharge.

Restoration of Trial Proceedings

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order of quashing and directed the restoration of the case to the files of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi. The respondent was granted a two-week window to appear before the Trial Court, with the direction that the Trial Court should consider his release on bail upon appearance, ensuring the legal process is allowed to reach its logical conclusion through trial rather than summary quashing.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026