Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Karan Talwar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5484 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 10736 of 2022)
Decided On : 19-12-2024
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 27(a) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 227 [[Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 250] – Supply of narcotics – Rejection of discharge petition – While calling upon to exercise power under Section 227, Cr.P.C., Judge concerned has to consider only record of case and documents produced along with same – Court could sift materials produced along with final report only for the purpose of considering question whether there is ground to proceed against accused concerned – In absence of any other material on record to connect appellant with crime, confession statement of co-accused by itself cannot be reason for his implication in crime – No contraband was recovered from appellant – Confessional statement of accused before police is inadmissible in evidence – In a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence at trial stage it would be a miscarriage of justice to make the person concerned to stand trial – Impugned order quashed and set aside and appellant discharged from case. (Paras 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is charge-sheeted only under Section 27(b) of NDPS Act, though some of other accused in said crime are also charged for offences under certain other enactments. Application for discharge filed by appellant was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Madras in CRLRC No.1258 of 2022 filed against order dated 26.07.2022 passed by ADJ in CMP No.586 of 2020 are quashed and set aside. As a necessary sequel, appellant who is accused in case pending on files of Additional District Judge-Special Court under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore is discharged from the said case, by allowing the prayer of appellant for discharge.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal document emphasizes several key principles relevant to criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of discharge and framing of charges:
Inadmissibility of Confessional Statements Before Police: A confessional statement made by an accused before police authorities is inadmissible as evidence in court. Relying solely on such statements to implicate an individual at trial constitutes a miscarriage of justice, especially when no other material supports the charge (!) (!) .
Scope of Power Under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.: The court’s power to discharge an accused at the preliminary stage is limited to examining the record and documents produced with the charge sheet. The court's role is to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed, based on the material available, without delving into detailed evaluation of evidence or weighing probabilities. If the material only raises suspicion without concrete evidence, the accused should be discharged (!) (!) (!) .
Principles for Framing Charges: When considering whether to frame a charge, the court must sift the material to see if a prima facie case exists. The standard is whether the material, on its face, discloses the essential ingredients of the offence. The court is not expected to conduct a full trial but to evaluate if the evidence suggests that the accused might have committed the offence. If the material only raises suspicion without supporting evidence, the court should not proceed (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Material for Proceeding Against an Accused: The material must be sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility that the accused committed the offence. Mere suspicion, especially based solely on inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused, is not enough to sustain a charge (!) (!) .
Discharge in Absence of Sufficient Evidence: When the only evidence against an accused is inadmissible or insufficient, it is unjust to compel the individual to stand trial. If no material can be translated into admissible evidence at trial, the proper course is to discharge the accused to prevent a miscarriage of justice (!) (!) (!) .
In this specific case, the court found no admissible material linking the appellant to the offence under the relevant section of the NDPS Act, apart from the inadmissible confession of a co-accused. Consequently, the court quashed the order dismissing the discharge application, set aside the charges, and discharged the appellant, emphasizing that a trial based solely on inadmissible evidence would be unjust.
JUDGMENT :
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.)
Leave granted.
1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Madras in CRLRC No.1258 of 2022 filed against the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Special Court under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore (for short, the “ADJ”) in CMP No.586 of 2020 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”) to discharge him from CC No.43 of 2020. As per the order dated 26.07.2022 the application for discharge filed by the appellant viz., accused No.13, in CC No.43 of 2020, was dismissed and as per the impugned order, the Revision Petition filed against the same was also dismissed.
2. The case of the prosecution in short is as follows: -
Accused No.1 owns 10 acres of coconut grove where he runs a resort in the name and style “Agrinest” (without approval from the Government). Accused No.2 manages the same along with others like accused Nos.3 and 15. Accused Nos.11 and 12 arranged for conducting a music fest in the said resort and also for supplying narcotic substances to the participants during the programme. Accused No.14 was brought from Russia to attract youngsters to the programme. Accused No.1 went to Kerala and purchased 200 grams of cannabis besides bringing drinks from other states from unknown persons and brought all such items to the resorts on 03.05.2019. In the night of 03.05.2019, a large group of youngsters from Tamil Nadu and Kerala thronged there to participate in the music programme. During the programme narcotic substances were given to Accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 9 & 13 and they consumed the same. Accused Nos.15, 8 and 10 also consumed the same and abetted commission of offences like supply of narcotics. In connection with the said incident, FIR No.129/2019 was registered on 04.05.2019 and in the said FIR, the appellant was shown as accused No.13 and accused of commission of offence under Section 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the “NDPS Act”). After the investigation, a final report was filed against all the accused and as per the same, the appellant herein (accused No.13) was charge sheeted only for offence under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. This appeal is filed by accused No.13 against dismissal of his application for discharge. Hence, we are confining the consideration only qua accused No.13.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu.
4. As noted above, the appellant is charge sheeted only under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, though some of the other accused in the said crime are also charged for offences under certain other enactments.
5. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is only appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C. This Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC 398; 2010 INSC 61, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C. and held thus: -
“227. Discharge. — If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a
Confessional statement of accused before police is inadmissible in evidence – In a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence at trial stage it would be a miscarri....
The court emphasized the necessity for a prima facie case to be established before proceeding to trial, underlining a judge's role in evaluating evidence without conducting a full trial.
(1) Discharge of accused – At stage of consideration of such application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by accused, cannot be looked at all – Court has to proceed with as....
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if there is ground for presuming that the ac....
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
