A co-accused's confession cannot be considered substantive evidence against another accused without corroborating materials, necessitating quashing of proceedings lacking such evidence.

ORDER :

1. Crl. O.P. No. 10896 of 2025 has been filed by A-6 and Crl. O.P. No. 10978 of 2025 has been filed by A-1 and A-2, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 120 of 2022 pending on the file of the Additional District Court and Special Court for Trial of cases under the E.C. Therefore, this Court passed common order in these two criminal original petitions.

2. The 2nd respondent registered an F.I.R in crime No.235 of 2021 alleging that on 23.05.2021 at about 11.30 a.m. received a message from a reliable source with regard to procurement and sale of ganja by a couple viz., A-7 and A-8 at their residence. After obtaining permission to conduct their residential search, the 2nd respondent made a search and when they attempted to escape, they were caught hold and based on their information, A1, A2, A9 and A10 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Based on their confession, the 2nd respondent had seized 232.5 kgs of ganja and thereafter, registered an FIR in crime No.235 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 8 C, 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. During the course of investigation, the 2nd respondent recorded the confession statements of the accused and implicated the above petitioners. As per the confession statement that they also colluded with other persons and convinced them to purchase contraband and the amount has been deposited in A-3's bank account, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent had requested the bank authority to freeze the A-3’s bank account. Accordingly, A-3’s IOB, District Court Branch, Erode, A/c. No. 182501000016431 had been frozen.

4. After the completion of investigation, the 2nd respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the learned Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C. Act Cases, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.120 of 2022.

5. Challenging the aforesaid proceedings, these Criminal Original Petitions have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners, A-1 and A-2 are husband and wife and they were implicated as accused, only on the confession statement of co-accused. On the strength of the confession statement, there was no recovery and there is no material to substantiate the confession statement of co-accused. Further, except the confession statement of co-accused, no one has spoken about the overt act of the petitioners to attract any of the charges as alleged by the prosecution. On the strength of the confession statement of co-accused, the 2nd respondent has filed a final report. The petitioners conspired with other accused persons, procured contraband in their office and sell it. Therefore, there is no material, much less, a legal one to connect the other accused persons with these petitioners in crime No.235 of 2021. The petitioners now have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Section 8C, 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that a confession of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as substantive piece of evidence as against another co-accused and at the best, it can be used to lend assurance of this Court. In support of this contention, he relied upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that there are totally 15 accused, in which, the petitioners are arrayed as A-1, A2 and A6. Though they were implicated as accused on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, there are incriminating materials against the petitioners. The entire crime proceeds were deposited with the A-3’s bank