Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Ezhilarasan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Superintendent of Police – Respondent
ORDER :
Crl.O.P.Nos.21505/2023 and 14144/2023 has been filed by A-3 and A-5, respectively, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.120/2022 pending on the file of the Additional District Court and Special Court for Trial of cases under the E.C. Act, Coimbatore and Crl.O.P.No.8022/2023 has been filed by A-3 to defreeze his bank account which has been frozen by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court passed common order in all these three criminal original petitions.
2. The 2nd respondent registered an FIR in crime No.235/2021 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.235/2021 for the offences under Sections 8C, 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. During the course of inve
Confession of a co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence against another co-accused without corroborative material.
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; 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.
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.
Confession of a co-accused is inadmissible against a non-present accused in the absence of corroborative evidence.
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
