Confessional statements of co-accused, lacking corroborative evidence, cannot establish guilt against another accused under the NDPS Act, resulting in quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs.

"A) To call for records, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada in Spl.C.No.19/2021;

B) To quash the impugned final report submitted by the respondent Police Urva P.S., against this petitioner in Crime No.133/2018 for the offence p/u/s/ 8(c), 20(b), ii(a), 21, 21(c) of the NDPS Act 1985 (Annexure C) pending before Principal D. J. Mangaluru;

C) To quash the impugned order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 8 (c), 20(b) ii(a), 21, 21(c) of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the petitioner in Spl.C.No.19/2021 (Annexure -D); D) To grant such other order, directions, relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 and learned HCGP for respondent/State.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, on 24.09.2018, a suo motu complaint was filed against the petitioner/accused No.3 and two other accused persons, i.e. Mohammed Shakeer (accused No.1) and Nadeem (accused No.2) in Crime No.133/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 20 , 21(b) and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "NDPS Act") by the respondent Police authorities. In pursuance of the same, the respondent Police conducted investigation, which is currently pending in Spl.C.No.19/2021 before the learned Principal District Judge at Mangaluru.

4. In this context, it is relevant to state that a perusal of the complaint/FIR charge sheet materials, statement of witnesses, documents etc. will indicate that the contraband substance was not recovered from the petitioner/accused No.3, but the same was recovered from accused No.1 and all that was recovered from the petitioner was a mobile phone and cash in a sum of `5,000/-. It is also significant to note that the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3 only on the basis of an alleged confessional statement of accused No.1 as is clear from the aforesaid material on record.

5. Under the identical circumstances, in the case of Sri. Sadiq Pasha Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Criminal Petition No.7690/2025 disposed of on 12.06.2025, this Court, following its earlier judgments has held as under:

"In this petition, petitioner No.2 seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No. 30/2025 by respondent No.1 – Police, pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru for the office punishable under section 20(b)(ii)C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.2- Complainant/ Police Officer lodged a complaint on 01.05.2025 against the petitioner-accused No.3 as well as Mithun Dhali – accused No.1 and Babula Madi - accused No.2, on the subject matter being 32.15 Kg of ganja was seized from the custody and possession of accused No.1 and 2 on 01.05.2025 and based on the alleged statement made by the aforesaid accused No.1 and 2, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the undisputed fact that the subject matter of the proceedings/32.15 Kg of ganja was not seized from the custody of the petitioner-accused No.3, the testimony of the co-accused Mithun Dhali - accused No.1 and Babula Madi - accused No.2, could not be ma