NDPS Act | Sole Reliance on Section 67 Confession Without Independent Corroboration is Abuse of Process; Proceedings Quashed: Karnataka High Court

“Permitting further proceedings against the petitioner who at any point in time was not alleged to be involved in any crime except in the aforesaid statements, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.”— In a seminal ruling, the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has quashed criminal proceedings against an engineering graduate implicated in a narcotic drugs case solely on the basis of voluntary statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

The Background: The 'Controlled Delivery' Trap

The case arose from the interception of a speed post parcel at the Marathahalli Colony Sub-Post Office, Bengaluru, containing 50 blots of LSD (0.560 gms). The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) undertook a "controlled delivery" operation, replacing the contraband with a dummy parcel. The parcel was addressed to the petitioner, Junaid Hussain Haveri. Upon delivery, the petitioner was apprehended.

During interrogation, the petitioner revealed that he had accepted the parcel on the telephonic instructions of his friend and former roommate, Abhay Kumar (Accused No. 2), without knowledge of its contents. The prosecution's case rested entirely on the voluntary statements of the petitioner and the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

“The petitioner is pinned down only on the voluntary statement recorded by the Investigating Officer... there is no material evidence to show that the petitioner/accused No.3 was aware of the contents of the parcel.”

The 'Tofan Singh' Bar: Confessions to NCB Officers Inadmissible

The High Court conducted a deep dive into the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), the Court reiterated that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, any confessional statement made to them is inadmissible in law and cannot form the sole basis for conviction.

The Court observed that apart from the voluntary statements, the prosecution failed to produce any independent corroborative material—such as a money trail or direct recovery from the petitioner's conscious possession—to link him to the drug trafficking ring.

“The petitioner, who is a student pursuing his Masters elsewhere, beyond the shores of the nation, should not be made to suffer for the voluntary/confessional statements of the co-accused.”

Procedural Lapses in Controlled Delivery

The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that proceedings against the co-accused, Abhay Kumar, had already been quashed by a coordinate bench in Abhay Kumar v. Union of India. In that case, the Court found that the NCB had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 50A of the NDPS Act, which governs "controlled delivery." Specifically, the operation was undertaken without the requisite authorization from the Director General or an authorized officer.

Justice Nagaprasanna held that since the proceedings against the main accused (who instructed the petitioner to collect the parcel) were quashed due to procedural vitiation, the petitioner stood on an "equal or better footing."

The Court held that continuing the prosecution would be a gross abuse of the process of law. It emphasized that a strong suspicion must be founded on material capable of being translated into admissible evidence at trial. Since the confession was inadmissible and no other evidence existed, the "vital link" between the accused and the offence had snapped.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in Special C.C. No. 2932 of 2023 were quashed qua the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 08/01/2026