Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Paritosh Chandrashekar Kulkarni S/o Chandrashekar Kulkarani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
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 statem
Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible without corroboration, leading to quashing of proceedings against the accused.
Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
Confessional statements of co-accused, lacking corroborative evidence, cannot establish guilt against another accused under the NDPS Act, resulting in quashing of proceedings.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
Confessional statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, making them insufficient to continue proceedings against another accused without corroborative evidence.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused without corroborative evidence, leading to quashing of proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence.
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 judgment emphasizes the principles of innocence until proven guilty, the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt, and the limitations on the admissibility of disclosure statements withou....
The main legal point established is the inadmissibility of retracted statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and the need for corroboration of evidence in drug-related cases.
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
