Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manoj Kumar Vyas, J.
Sanjay & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Narcotic Control Bureau - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 489 of 2019
Decided On : 15-09-2021
NDPS - Charges Framed - NDPS Act Sections 8, 20, 25, 29 - The court emphasized the inadmissibility of confessions made under coercion and the necessity of corroborative evidence for framing charges, leading to the quashing of the trial court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged under the NDPS Act based on alleged disclosures by co-accused, with no direct evidence linking them to the contraband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court improperly relied on inadmissible evidence, particularly confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without sufficient corroborative evidence.
Issues: Whether the charges framed against the petitioners were sustainable given the reliance on inadmissible evidence and lack of corroborative proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that charges cannot be framed solely on inadmissible confessions and emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to establish a prima facie case.
Result: The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
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 of the NDPS Act because except interrogation of co-accused, no other evidence is available on record and it is settled law that no charge can be framed on the basis of police interrogation as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioners were not present at the alleged place of incident. No recovery has been made from their conscious possession. The only evidence available against them on record is the confessional statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in law without any supporting corroborative evidence. The charges have been framed in a routine manner. Statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act is not admissible as per the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the duty of trial Court to sift and weigh the evidence to find out prima facie ground to frame charges against the accused but the trial Court has framed the charges without taking into consideration the fact that whether any sufficient material is available on record for coming to prima facie conclusion that there are grounds to frame charges against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
ii. Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 10 SCC 394
iii. Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135
iv. Saurabh Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.2209/2018 Date of Order 24.04.2019
4. Heard and perused the evidence available on record as well as the impugned order dated 02.02.2019.
5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 02.02.2019 reveals that the learned trial Court has considered the statements of the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act while coming to a prima facie conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioners.
6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the recent pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh's case (Supra), the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, are inadmissible in evidence and it has also been submitted that apart from the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there is no other cogent or reliable evidence on record for framing the charges against the petitioners for the alleged offence.
7. Considering the overall evidence available on record as well as submission of counsel for the petitioners that after the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (Supra), the order of framing the charges against the petitioners is not legal
AI
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
