Voluntary Confessions of Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Accused

Statements Made Under Section 67 of NDPS Act Are Inadmissible as Evidence - Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Siddaraju (Accused No. 3), in connection with a narcotics case (C.C. No. 17532/2018). The case involved charges under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), among others. The Court held that the petitioner’s implication in the case, based solely on the voluntary statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, was contrary to law and constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 12 SCR 583, the High Court reiterated:
“Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as evidence to implicate an accused. Such statements, being confessional in nature, are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”

The case stemmed from an investigation initiated by the Rajajinagara Police, Bengaluru, in Crime No. 15/2017. During the investigation, two individuals, Nandish H.J. and Pramod R.S. (Accused Nos. 1 and 2), were apprehended, and contraband substances were recovered from their possession. Based on their voluntary statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner, Siddaraju, was subsequently implicated as Accused No. 3 and charged with supplying the contraband.

Significantly, the petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR, and no contraband was recovered from his possession, custody, or residence. The prosecution’s case against the petitioner hinged solely on the statements of the co-accused.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash the proceedings on the grounds that his implication was based solely on inadmissible evidence.

The Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which declared that officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, any confessional statements made to such officers are inadmissible as evidence.

Quoting from Tofan Singh, the Court observed: “158.1 That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are ‘police officers’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.”

Applying this principle, the High Court held that the voluntary statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 67 could not be used to implicate the petitioner.

The Court emphasized that no recovery of contraband was made from the petitioner’s possession or premises. In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, the prosecution’s case against him could not be sustained.

“The substance in question was neither recovered from the petitioner’s possession nor from his residence. The mere statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible, cannot form the basis for implicating the petitioner,” the Court noted.

The Court held that continuing proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of substantive evidence, would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and violate the principles of due process and fair trial.

The Court observed: “Permitting further proceedings against the petitioner, who was not alleged to be involved in the crime except in the statements of co-accused, would result in patent injustice and abuse of the process of law.”

Highlighted that the NDPS Act mandates strict compliance with procedural safeguards, and violations render proceedings untenable.
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 17532/2018 pending before the XXXII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

The Court ordered:
“(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in C.C. No. 17532/2018 on the file of the XXXII Addl. C.J.M., Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed.”
This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Tofan Singh, ensuring that statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used to convict an accused in the absence of independent evidence. The Karnataka High Court has once again emphasized that mere suspicion or inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused cannot substitute the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2025