Back
P. DHANABAL
B. Karthick – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.159 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C. Act cases, Pudukottai District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found indulged in selling of kanja and there by the other accused caught red handed and based on the confession of the co-accused this petitioner was arrayed as an accused for harbouring the accused and he has been charged for the offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 27A and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 and 120(B) of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A7 in this case and as per the prosecution A1 to A7 illegally transported kanja. On 26.11.2023 at about 09.15 a.m., the respondent police found a four wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 38 BZ 3420 belonging to A2 with 105kgs of kanja and the same was tried to transport to Srilanka through Ship and thereafter A1, A2 and A3 ran away and escaped through an auto to Mangalkudi vilakku road where A5 was waiting in a car to pick up them. A1 to A3 and A5 escaped from the scene of occurrence
Framing of charge – Only based on confession statement of co-accused and without any materials to implicate accused no charges can be framed.
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused; absence of other evidence entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused; absence of other evidence entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.
A co-accused's confession cannot be considered substantive evidence against another accused without corroborating materials, necessitating quashing of proceedings lacking such evidence.
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused without corroborative material.
The court emphasized the necessity of tangible evidence in criminal cases, ruling that confessions of co-accused cannot solely support a charge without independent corroboration.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
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.
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
