IMPORTANT POINT
Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible without corroboration, leading to quashing of proceedings against the accused.

ORDER :

The petitioner/accused No.3 is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in split up Special C. No. 24 of 2022 arising out of Special C.No.131 of 2019 concerning Crime No.94 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 8C and 20(B)(II)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was a student of B.Tech in the discipline of Chemical Engineering at Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal. He was a student between 2016 and 2020. He completes his studies and is pursuing higher studies in the United States of America – M.S. in Chemical Engineering at Columbia University. The issue in the lis is what happened between 2016 and 2020. On 12-08-2018, a suo motu crime comes to be registered by the respondent in Crime No.94 of 2018 for the afore- quoted offences. The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.3. The arraigning of the petitioner happens on account of statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 recorded by the Police. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-08-2018 at around 12 p.m. the police conduct a search in a particular house near Gurukripa apartment and seized 1 kg. and 712 gms. of ganja from the hands of accused Nos. 1 and 2 where accused Nos. 1 and 2 were staying. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused No.3 ran away from there. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were taken into custody and the aforesaid quantity of ganja was seized.

4. The Police record the statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 wherein they have informed that they got into the habit of possession and consumption of ganja from accused No.3, the petitioner and he was not available for questioning. On 24-08-2018 accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail and the petitioner is seen absconding. The police file a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and show the petitioner as an absconder in the charge sheet filed on 9-07-2019. The concerned Court, takes cognizance of the offence as afore-quoted and registers Special case No.131 of 2019. Noticing the fact that the petitioner was shown as absconder, a split charge sheet was drawn against the petitioner on 4-03-2022 in Special C. No.24 of 2022. The petitioner claims that he then became aware of the proceedings against him, as he was not in the country at the time when the trial was on. On getting to know of the proceedings, the petitioner has preferred the subject petition seeking quashment of the entire proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that apart from showing the petitioner as absconder, no attempts are made to reach the petitioner. It is his case that the name of the petitioner is drawn only on confessional statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 recorded under Section 67 of the Act. It is his submission that statements of co-accused do not have any evidentiary value, unless they are corroborated with the acts of the petitioner. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings on the said ground.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has been absconding, not available for trial, charge sheet is filed and, therefore, he must come out clean in the trial. He is not in India. Therefore, he has not appeared before the concerned Court on any occasion. Innumerable non-bailable warrants issued have all become unexecutable, as the petitioner is beyond the shores of the nation. He would, nonetheless, seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that w