Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Junaid Hussain Haveri Son Of Anwar Haveri – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
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 33rd 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.
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.
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, lacking corroborative evidence, cannot establish guilt against another accused under the NDPS Act, resulting in quashing of proceedings.
Statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, and mere association does not establish a prima facie case for bail denial under the NDPS Act.
Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements cannot sustain a conviction, leading to the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, impacting the prosecution's case for bail under the NDPS Act.
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.
The court held that confession statements under the NDPS Act require corroborative evidence, and prolonged pre-trial detention with no contraband recovery justifies granting bail.
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
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
