Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by its the Inspector of Police Erode Taluk Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of petitions to quash proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against reliance on co-accused confession. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 3. legal standards on co-accused confessions and burden of proof. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. quashing of proceedings against petitioners. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
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. Ba
A co-accused's confession cannot be considered substantive evidence against another accused without corroborating materials, necessitating quashing of proceedings lacking such evidence.
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused without corroborative material.
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused; absence of other evidence entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused; absence of other evidence entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.
Framing of charge – Only based on confession statement of co-accused and without any materials to implicate accused no charges can be framed.
Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
Confessional statements of co-accused, lacking corroborative evidence, cannot establish guilt against another accused under the NDPS Act, resulting in quashing of proceedings.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
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
