Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.

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 made the basis to lodge a complaint as against the petitioner-accused No.3 as held by this Court in the case of Mr. Paritosh Chandrashekar Kulkarni vs. State of Karnataka reported in Crl.P.No.1850/2023 dated 19.7.2024 , whereby this Court has followed the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 as well as State vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633 as well as Balwinder Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1213 and also Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 . It is therefore submitted that impugned proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 deserves to be quashed.

5. The issue as to whether reliance can be placed upon the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused came up for consideration before this Court in the Paritosh Chandrasheka Kulkarni’s case (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under:

“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