Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Fakrudeen @ Irfan, Son Of Mr. Abdul Rahiman – Appellant
Versus
State, By Urva Police Station, Represented By The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Bengaluru – Respondent
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
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 of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible without corroboration, leading to quashing of proceedings against the accused.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused without corroborative evidence, leading to quashing of proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence.
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.
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.
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible if made to officers acting as police officers, as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be used to convict ....
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
