IMPORTANT POINT
Framing of charge – Only based on confession statement of co-accused and without any materials to implicate accused no charges can be framed.

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. Thereafter A3 informed the said incident to A7/the petitioner herein and the petitioner after knowing that he involved in the kanja case harboured A3 and sent him to Tirupur and arranged job in the Solar Planet at Tirupur. Thereafter the case was registered. Infact the petitioner has no knowledge about the incident and except the confession statement of A3 there is no evidence to show that A3 involved in the harbouring the accused and A3 was not under the custody of the petitioner. Even as per the prosecution he only arranged job to A3 at Tirupur, therefore there is no materials to constitute the offence under Section 27(A) of NDPS Act but the respondent police without proper investigation included the petitioner as one of the accused but the trial Court without any materials had taken cognizance 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, therefore the pending proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that A1 to A6 involved in illegal transportation of kanja from Tamil Nadu to Srilanka. A3 is none other than the brother-in-law of the petitioner herein in and the petitioner after knowing that A3 involved in the transportation of kanja harboured A3 and arranged job at Solar Planet, Tirupur therefore he committed offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c),25, 27A and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 and 120(B) of IPC. Based on the confession statement of A3 the petitioner/A7 has been arrayed as one of the accused in this case and therefore the petitioner has to face the trial and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. In this case the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A7 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 along with other accused. The main accusation against the petitioner is that he harboured A3 after knowing that A3 involved in kanja case. The prosecution relied upon the confession statement of A3 and impleaded the petitioner as one of the accused. It is well settled law that only based on the confession statement of co-accused and without any materials to implicate the accused no charges can be framed. In this case, this petitioner has been implicated as one of the accused only based on the confession statement of A3 and no other evidence is collected during investigation. In this case except the confession statement of A3, no other evidence collected by the investigation agency. Even according to the confession of A3, the petitioner/A7 arranged job for A3 at Tirupur and the same will not amount to harbouring the accused, there is no piece of evidence that the petitioner had knowledge about the i