Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
Mansoor Ali S/o Alavi Manakkadavan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused No.5 in S.C. No. 127 of 2023 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the dismissal of the discharge application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C .
2. There are altogether five accused. The offences alleged against accused Nos. 1 to 3 are under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and the offence alleged against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 is under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 19.08.2022 at 11.30 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in possession of 21.450 kilograms of Ganja in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules while they were transporting the same in a car bearing registration No. TN-09-BF-1275. The allegation against the petitioner and the accused No. 4 is that they arranged and sent money to the accused No. 2 to purchase the seized contraband.
4. The petitioner appeared at the trial court. He filed an application for discharge as Crl.M.P.No. 12 of 2023 on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The trial court, upon consideration of
The court held that confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused, and call detail records alone do not establish complicity in drug trafficking.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence of conspiracy to charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
Commitment of distinct offences requires separate charges under the Cr.P.C., as failure to comply leads to procedural invalidity of prosecution.
(1) Discharge of accused – Mere suspicion, however strong, or expressions of hostility and ill-will, cannot substitute legal requirement of grave suspicion sufficient to frame charge.(2) Conspiracy –....
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.
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
