The trial court is justified in refusing to order joint trial and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

Both these Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the prosecution questioning the correctness of the separate orders, both dated 15.06.2015, passed by the learned II Additional Special Court under NDPS Act Cases, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1084 and 1083 of 2015 respectively in C.C. No. 46 of 2012 refusing to mark the confession statement of a co-accused in C.C. No. 46 of 2012 and also to order for joint trial of the cases sought for by the prosecution.

2. The respondent is the first accused in C.C. No. 48 of 2012. There are three accused in the case filed by the prosecution in C.C. No. 48 of 2012. The respondent herein was arrested on 10.06.2012 in connection with the case in C.C. No. 48 of 2012 and he is in custody till date. The other two accused viz., Bharathi and Deshmukh were absconding. Therefore, the trial court split up the case against the respondent herein and the other two accused. The split up case against the other two accused was numbered as C.C. No. 62 of 2013. As far as the case against the respondent herein in C.C. No. 48 of 2012, it was taken up for trial to try him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 22, 23, 27-A, 28 and 29 of Narcoticc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act).

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the third accused in the case namely Deshmukh has supplied psychotropic substances namely 28 kilograms of Ketamine to the respondent/accused and to this effect the statement of the third accused was obtained under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai. Such statement made by Deshmukh came to light only during the course of trial in C.C. No. 48 of 2012. It also came to light that the other accused in this case namely Deshmukh/A-3 was arrested by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai for possessing 83.430 kilograms of Ketamine and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and lodged in the Central Prison, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. It is the further case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai, the statement of Deshmukh/A-3 was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in which he has stated that he supplied 28 kilograms of Ketamine to the accused/respondent herein. It is further stated by Deshmukh that he was the supplier of Ketamine and the accused/respondent herein is the buyer. Such statement made by respondent/accused was also marked as Ex.P10 in the present case. On coming to know about the statement given by Deshmukh before the officials of Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai, the prosecution has filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 1084 of 2015 under Section 173 (8) of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.) praying to permit the prosecution to file the statement of Deshmukh/A-3 recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act as an additional document.

4. The accused/respondent has filed a counter in Crl.M.P. No. 1084 of 2015 contending that the application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. According to the accused/respondent, the admissibility of statement made under Section 67 of NDPS Act is the subject matter of reference to a larger bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India. In fact, the Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case rendered in Tufensingh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (2) Madras Weekly Notes held that the earlier decision rendered in Kanniyalal vs. Union of India (2008 (4) SCC 668 is doubtful and therefore the issue was referred to a larger bench. While so, the reliance placed by the prosecution on the statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act by the Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai to implicate the accused/respondent is legally not sustainable. Further, in the statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by Deshmukh/A-3, there is nothing to implicate the accused/respondent except the word "John". Therefore, according to the accused/respondent, the statement made by Deshmukh/A-3 under Section 67