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.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/accused No.3 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special C.C.No.2932 of 2023, pending before the 33^rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, registered for offences punishable under Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Ms. Keerthi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Smt. Shridevi M. Bhosle, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent.

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

A complaint comes to be registered by the respondent before the Special Judge under Section 36A of the Act alleging offences punishable as afore-quoted. It is alleged that pursuant to a credible information received by the Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau (‘NCB’), that one speed post parcel sent from Coimbatore destined to Marathalli Colony Sub-Post Office was suspected to be containing drug concealment and would reach Marathalli Sub-Post Office on 20-06-2023. The said information was taken down in Form, NCB-I. The team reached the Sub-Post Office on 20-06-2023, at around 14.30 hours and on the written request, the Post Master handed over the parcel to the Investigating Officer. It was seen that the shipper address was mentioned as Global Wisdom Centre and the receiver address was mentioned as the name of the petitioner. Further, on opening the same, it was found that there were four blank pages; one folded blank page; on opening of the blank page, a plastic pouch was found, which was containing silver foil, containing 50 blot papers in a printed pattern, which is believed to be LSD tablets and were weighed and the net weight of which came to 0.560 gms. This led to drawing of a panchanama as per law and the Investigating Officer requested the Post Master to deliver a dummy parcel bearing the same number at the assignee address. The Post Master is said to have delivered a dummy parcel and a person receives the parcel after affixing his signature. The Investigating Officer intercepts the person and upon inquiry, the name of the petitioner is revealed by the said person and summons was issued to the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Act.

3.1. On interrogation, it was revealed that his friend Abhay Kumar, accused No.2 who was his previous roommate, who has now moved to IIM-B Hostel, telephonically informed that a parcel which was addressed in the name of the petitioner will be delivered and requested the same to be accepted and later to hand it over to accused No.2. This is the alleged modus operandi. Therefore, one factor becomes clear that the name of the petitioner is drawn by the statement of the person whom the Investigating Officer apprehended who would be accused No.1. Accused No.1 revealed that accused No.2, the present petitioner had arranged this to be delivered to accused No.3. Therefore, the offences sprang. On 22.06.2023, the petitioner was taken into custody on drawing up an arrest memo. The NCB officials after conduct of investigation, file a charge sheet against the accused. After receipt of the charge sheet, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences as afore-quoted on 16-12-2023. It is this order of taking cognizance that is presently challenged in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Ms. Keerthi Krishna Reddy appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that accused No.3, the petitioner did not know the contents of the parcel. The voluntary statement of accused No.2 wo