NDPS Act | Prosecution Cannot Rely Solely On Co-Accused's Statement When No Contraband Recovered From Accused: Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

"Cases primarily rest on the disclosure statement of the petitioner himself and that of the co-accused which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence against the petitioner at the time of trial." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that criminal proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act cannot be sustained against an accused solely on the basis of confessional statements made by co-accused in police custody.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh observed that in the absence of any recovery of contraband from the accused or independent corroborative evidence, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court's process.

The petitioner, an authorized wholesale medicine dealer based in Agra, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of three separate NDPS cases registered against him. He was implicated in these cases based on the disclosure statements of various co-accused individuals who were apprehended with quantities of Phensedyl and Codeine Phosphate cough syrups. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner supplied the contraband, although no illicit substances were ever recovered from his possession.

The primary question before the court was whether an accused can be subjected to trial under the NDPS Act when the prosecution's entire case rests on the inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused and hearsay witness accounts. The court was also called upon to determine whether large financial transactions in the accused's bank accounts could independently establish a nexus to narcotics trafficking without corroborative material.

No Presumption Of Guilt Without Proof Of Possession

The court extensively examined the statutory presumptions under the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the culpable mental state of the accused. The bench clarified that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act is triggered only after the prosecution successfully discharges its initial burden of proof. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Noor Aga v. State of West Bengal, the court emphasised that the element of possession is a mandatory prerequisite to shift the burden of proof onto the accused under Section 54 of the Act.

"To bring within its purview the requirement of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband by the accused is essential so as to shift the burden on the accused."

Confessional Statements Hold No Evidentiary Value

Addressing the core of the prosecution's case, the court noted that the allegations were entirely rooted in the disclosure statements of the petitioner and the co-accused. The bench firmly rejected this approach, ruling that such statements cannot serve as admissible evidence during a trial. Furthermore, the court observed that the statements of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were merely hearsay accounts regarding the petitioner's alleged involvement in the narcotics trade, which hold no legal validity.

"Mere discovery of disproportionate assets of the petitioner and huge monetary transactions in his bank accounts do not ipso facto suggest that he has been dealing in contraband substance."

Financial Anomalies Do Not Automatically Imply Narcotics Trade

The prosecution had vehemently argued that the petitioner possessed disproportionate assets and that his bank accounts revealed suspicious, high-value transactions. Dismissing this argument as insufficient for sustaining an NDPS prosecution, the court held that financial irregularities alone cannot establish complicity in drug trafficking. The bench noted that while monetary transactions had occurred with various companies, there was absolutely nothing on record to indicate that these funds pertained to narcotic substances.

Absence Of Corroborative Electronic Evidence

The court further highlighted fundamental investigative flaws in the prosecution's case. It pointed out that despite the seizure of the petitioner's mobile phone, there were no call detail records (CDR) or electronic data to suggest any communication between the petitioner and the co-accused regarding the transaction of contraband. Additionally, the investigating agency failed to obtain any confirmation from the pharmaceutical manufacturer regarding the batch numbers of the seized cough syrups.

Prosecution Found To Be An Abuse Of Legal Process

Drawing upon the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court categorised the present matter as one where the uncontroverted allegations failed to disclose the commission of any offence. The bench concluded that since no nexus had been established between the petitioner, the co-accused, or the alleged crime, forcing the petitioner to face trial would be a grave miscarriage of justice.

"The petitioner should not be made to suffer the ordeal of a trial which shall not lead anywhere."

The High Court allowed the revisional applications and quashed the proceedings in all three police station cases insofar as they pertained to the petitioner. The court additionally set aside the previous order of the Special NDPS Court that had dismissed the petitioner's discharge application, directing that the petitioner be set at liberty at once and discharged from his bail bond.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026