Back
MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Sanjay – Appellant
Versus
Narcotic Control Bureau – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 1/2019, by which the charges were framed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel that the accused-petitioners have been arrested in this case alleging that their involvement has been disclosed by the co-accused during the course of investigation. The petitioners have been arrested and charge-sheet has been filed against them on the sole basis of alleged disclosure of the co-accused. Legally, this disclosure is not admissible and cannot be made basis for any prosecution in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The complaint in the present case is not sustainable qua the petitioners. The petitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of inadmissible evidence. They have been arrested after the recovery of contraband in this matter, therefore, there is no connecting evidence on record against the petitioners. No case is made out against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 8/29
Charges under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained on the basis of inadmissible evidence without corroboration.
Co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible against another accused, and the court must only assess prima facie evidence at the charge framing stage.
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.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused without corroborative evidence, leading to quashing of proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence.
The admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, particularly the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, are crucial in determining the grounds for framing charges against an accused.
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating admissible evidence for trial.
Charges must be substantiated by legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.
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
