Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused without corroborative evidence, leading to quashing of proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) (for short ‘ BNSS ') by the petitioner/accused No.8 to quash the proceedings against him in SC NDPS.No.308 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad registered as FIR No.165 of 2024 on the file of P.S.Karkhana. The offence alleged against the petitioner-accused No.8 is under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short ‘Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2024, on receiving credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Karkhana, went to the said place and found accused Nos.6 and 7 under the influence of psychotropic substance and were unable to stand properly. Basing on the confession statement of accused Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner herein is the consumer, he was arrayed as accused No.8 in the crime and a case in Crime No.165 of 2024 was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance and numbered the case as S.C. NDPS No.308 of 2024.

3. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.8 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner/accused No.8 is not present at the scene of offence and nothing was recovered from his possession, merely basing on the confession of co-accused, he was falsely implicated in the case. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he is a consumer, however, medical test was conducted on him to prove that he is a habitual consumer of any narcotic substance. The remand report and FIR do not disclose any incriminating material to proceed against the petitioner and the only witnesses in the present case are the Police officials and the panch witnesses and there is no incriminating material seized from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is pursuing his final year Law Degree in Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad and his entire career will be spoiled, if the proceedings against him are continued.

5. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, [(2018) 8 Supreme court Cases 271], wherein, it was held as:

“6. For the present purposes, we will proceed on the footing that the statements of co-accused were recorded under and in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. As regards such statements, a Bench of two Judges of this Court after referring to and relying upon the earlier judgments, observed in kanhaiyalal v. Union of India as under : (SCC p.682, para 45)

“45. Considering the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the view expressed by this Court in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, [(1990) 2 SCC 409: 1990 SCC (Cri) 330] with which we agree, that an officer vested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station under Section 53 of the above Act is not a “police officer” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not the same as a statement made under Section 161 of the Code, unless made under threat or coercion. It is this vital difference, which allows a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to be used as a confession against the person making it and excludes it from the operation of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act.”

7. Later, another Bench of two