Confessional statements of co-accused under Section 67 NDPS Act are insufficient for implicating another accused without corroborating evidence.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by accused No.3 in CC No.17532/2018 seeks quashing of the said proceedings on the file of the 32^nd Addl. CJM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’) and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 20.01.2017, on the information furnished by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.15/2017 was registered by respondent No.1 – police authorities against one Nandish H.J. and Pramod R.S., (accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively) and during course of investigation, based on the alleged voluntary statement of the aforesaid accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Nandish H.J. and Pramod R.S., the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3 to the charge sheet and the aforesaid proceedings in C.C.No.17532/2018, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an undisputed fact that the substance in question was not recovered from either the residence or custody or possession of the petitioner – accused No.3, who was not arrayed as accused in the FIR. It is submitted that it is subsequently based on the alleged voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner is sought to be arrayed as accused No.3, which is impermissible in law in the light of the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court inSaikat Bhattacharyya Vs. Union of India – Crl.P.No.3/2024 dated 04.09.2024; Afroz @ Afroz Pasha Vs. The State of Karnataka and another – W.P.No.9966/2023 dated 09.08.2024 and Raghavendra and another Vs. The State of Karnataka and another – W.P.No.20666/2023 dated 05.03.2024 wherein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – (2020) 12 SCR 583 in order to come to the conclusion that in the absence of any other corroborative material mere voluntary statement of the co-accused cannot be made the basis to implicate the petitioner as accused No.3 since the substance in question was neither recovered from the residence or custody nor possession of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – accused No.3 are contrary to the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and the same deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. In Saikat Bhattacharyya’s case supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this court under identical circumstances in relation to the proceedings under the NDPS held as follows:

“ 8. The afore-narrated facts of the petitioner being drawn into the web of crime is not disputed. How he gets into the crime is what is required to be reiterated. The respondent is said to have received information of a parcel being sent from Shree Maruthi Courier Service. They were 4 in number. All the 4 parcels is said to have contained ganja. On ganja being found in those 4 parcels, the police registers a suo motu case against several accused, all the accused are before this Court. After registration of the crime, the accused were interrogated and their statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Recording of the statement led to the filing of a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.3 before this Court in the subject petition.

9. The undisputed facts, in the case at hand, are that the