Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
Aasif Mohammad @ Asif Mohammad @ Asif @ Viki – Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.R. 4110 of 2022
Decided on 6.4.2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee and Mr. Arindam Poali, Advocates
For the Respondent-State:Mr. Saryati Dutta and Ms. Baishakhi Chatterjee, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Seizure of smuggled items – Confessional statement made by accused before police during custody is inadmissible in law and cannot be only basis for prosecution.
(2) Confessional statement made by co-accused under Section 67 of NDPS Act is inadmissible as evidence against another co-accused.
Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 21(c)/29 read with Sections 18(b)/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Seizure of smuggled items – Investigating officer failed to collect any evidence to connect Petitioner to crime – No financial trail or incriminating material has been disclosed on record linking petitioner to alleged offence – When there is no material at all against petitioner, it would be a miscarriage of justice to make person concerned stand trial because it would highly prejudice petitioner – No evidence transpires from case diary as regards any link with petitioner and contraband goods recovered from co-accused persons – Allegation of Investigation Agency against petitioner, that he is master mind behind drug racket, is baseless when no iota of evidence transpired from record against petitioner – Confessional statement made by accused before police during custody is inadmissible in law and cannot be only basis for prosecution – Criminal proceeding quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned. (Paras 12, 13, 16, 17 and 19)
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 67 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confessional statement – Such a statement can, at best, be used only for corroboration or to lend assurance to court if there is other substantial independent evidence, but it cannot be sole basis for conviction – Confessional statement made by co-accused under Section 67 of NDPS Act is inadmissible as evidence against another co-accused in a trial and is considered a confession made to a “police officer” hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act and cannot be used to convict accused. (Paras 14 and 15)
Result: Criminal Revision Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.—The instant Criminal Revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of proceeding being Special Case No. 125 of 2021 arising out of Malda Police Station Case No. 556 of 2021 dated 12.11.2021 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) read with Sections 18(b)/27 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ‘DC Act’) pending before the Learned Judge, Special 3rd Court under NDPS Act, Malda.
Facts of the Case:-
2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this instant Criminal Revisional application, are as follows: -
a. On 12.11.2021, the police personnel of Malda Police Station lodged a suo moto complaint alleging, inter alia, that one Masroor, son of Late Islam, and Md. Arif, son of Ghurekha, both of Hazipur, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, were apprehended with one Tata Truck bearing No. UP15CT2770 as per source information after hot chase at Narayanpur Popra More under Malda P.S. and recovered 20,000 bottles of phensedyl, 3 pieces of mobile handsets, and genuine Indian currency of Rs.6,500/-.
b. It was further alleged that during interrogation, the detained accused persons confessed that the said seized smuggled items belonged to the petitioner herein, Asif @ Viki of Meerut, UP, having the mobile no. 8001419887 and 9120888444. They further submitted that the items were to be delivered to one Shyam of Gangarampur, Dakshin Dinajpur, in lieu of money.
c. Based on such facts, a case being Malda Police Station Case No. 556 of 2021, dated 12.11.2021, under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the DC Act, has been registered against four accused persons and an investigation was initiated.
d. Upon getting to know about lodging the aforesaid false case, on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused made before the police officer, the petitioner immediately filed an Anticipatory bail application being C.R.M. (A) No. 2441 of 2022 dated 08.06.2022 and obtained Anticipatory Bail from the Hon’ble High Court.
e. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted a charge sheet, being Charge Sheet No. 242 of 2022 dated 07.05.2022 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 18(b)/27 of the DC Act against seven accused persons including the Petitioner although he was completely innocent and no evidence, even prima facie, was found against the petitioner.
f. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the initiation and continuation of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revisional application with aforesaid prayer. Hence, this application.
Submission on Behalf of the Petitioner-
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has been implicated falsely in the present case. The alleged mobile numbers disclosed by the co-accused do not belong to the petitioner, which has also been observed by this Hon’ble High Court, while granting bail to the petitioner. The report submitted before the Hon’ble High Court does not show that the petitioner was the owner of the SIM card/mobile phones, through which telephonic conversations had been made with the co-accused while transportation. Therefore, the petitioner has been granted Anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble High Court vide CRM (A) No. 2441 of 2022 dated 08.06.2022.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is completely innocent and in no way involved with the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in this case, only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. The name of the petitioner transpiring in the present case, on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused before the police officer, is inadmissible evidence.
5. Learned counsel further submitted t
