Confessional statements to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, impacting the sufficiency of evidence for drug-related charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) for quashment of order dated 20.08.2024 passed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, [“the trial court”] vide which, he came to be charged for offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act”]. Alongside, he has preferred an application under Section 483 BNSS read with Section 439 Cr.P.C. for his emancipation. Since both the petitions trace their origin to FIR No. 15 of 2023, thus, being disposed of by virtue of this common judgment.

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the petitions, it shall be expedient to have an overview of the backgrounds facts.

3. As the prosecution story from the impugned order as also the trial court record would unfurl, Incharge Police Station, Anti Narcotic Task Force, (ANTF), Jammu, received a source information on 19.12.2023 at 11:00 hours that two persons, namely, Naresh Kumar and Balwinder Chug, in furtherance of common criminal intention to sell contrabands to the local youth, were transporting huge quantity of banned syrups and tablets and their car, bearing Registration No. DL9CAM-1558, was parked at Trikuta Nagar. On the receipt of this information, aforesaid FIR came to be registered and investigation was entrusted to Sh. Ankush Chib, Inspector. At about 11:30 hours, the investigating officer proceeded to the spot and found the said persons sitting in the car, which came to be searched in the presence of Executive Magistrate 1^st Class, Bhalwal, as a result whereof, a blue stroller luggage bag was recovered from behind the driver seat (legs space area) and when opened, 136 bottles (100 ml each) of Novitas Cough Syrup partially wrapped with brown tapes and 10 multi-coloured strips of Etizolam tables (100 tablets) came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the aforesaid persons. The contraband, as per the investigating agency, was commercial quantity and requisite legal formalities were conducted on the spot.

4. It surfaced during investigation that accused, Naresh Kumar Verma had collected the aforesaid contrabands of Cough Syrup bottles and tablets from unknown persons from Delhi. He came to Jammu by train and handed over the consignment to his associate, co-accused-Balwinder Chug, who sold the intoxicants to co-accused-Naveen Chopra, Sunil Singh Jamwal and Sheikh Murtaza Gulzar-the petitioner herein, who would sell contrabands to the local youth of their respective districts Jammu, Samba and Ramban to make the young generation addict, spoil their future and earn easy money.

5. It transpired during investigation that all the accused persons were in constant touch with each other as manifested from the record of call details (CDRs) and transfer of sizeable amounts from the account of one accused to the other. None of the accused could offer justifiable explanation regarding the cash transactions. The petitioner and co-accused, Sunil Singh Jamwal and Naveen Chopra came to be implicated, in the present case, on the basis of statements made by accused Naresh Kumar and Balwinder Chug, from whose conscious possession contraband in question came to be recovered. According to the investigating agency, there was sufficient material in the shape of CDRs and cash transactions on record to proceed against all the accused persons.

6. Petitioner has questioned the impugned order dated 20.08.2024, vide which, he came to be charged by the trial court on the predominant premise that the only evidence available against him, is his statement and statement of co- accused, driver of the car, recorded by the investigating agency under Section 67 of the NDPS Act while they were in custody, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu; (2021) 4 SCC 1. It i