Confessional statements of co-accused, without independent corroboration, are inadmissible under the NDPS Act, resulting in quashing of proceedings against the accused.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner – accused No.2 seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings in Spl.C.No.73/2025 (arising out of FIR in Crime No.92/2025 of Udupi Town Police Station), pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi (for short “the Trial Court”), for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”).

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

3. Respondent No.2- Complainant/ Police Officer lodged a complaint on 10.06.2025 against the petitioner-accused No.2 as well as accused No.1 – Vijay, on the subject matter being 4.42 grams of methamphetamine and 1.97 grams of methylene-dioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) was seized from the custody and possession of accused No.1 on 10.06.2025 and based on the alleged statement made by the aforesaid accused No.1, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed and case was registered as Spl.C.No.73/2025 before the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the undisputed fact that the subject matter of the proceedings/4.42 grams of Methamphetamine and 1.97 grams of methylene-dioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) was not seized from the custody of the petitioner-accused No2, the testimony of the co- accused, Vijay – accused No.1 could not be made the basis to lodge a complaint as against the petitioner-accused No.2 as held by this Court in the case ofMr.Paritosh Chandrashekar Kulkarni vs. State of Karnataka reported in Crl.P.No.1850/2023 dated 19.7.2024, whereby this Court has followed the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofTofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in(2021) 4 SCC 1as well asState vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta reported in(2022) 12 SCC 633 as well asBalwinder Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau reported in2023 SCC OnLine SC 1213 and alsoFirdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in2024 SCC OnLine SC 680. It is therefore submitted that impugned proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 deserves to be quashed.

5. The issue as to whether reliance can be placed upon the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused came up for consideration before this Court in the Paritosh Chandrasheka Kulkarni’s case (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under:

“The petitioner/accused No.3 is before this Court calling in question entire proceedings in split up Special C. No. 24 of 2022 arising out of Special C.No.131 of 2019 concerning Crime No.94 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 8C and 20(B)(II)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was a student of B.Tech in the discipline of Chemical Engineering at Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal. He was a student between 2016 and 2020. He completes his studies and is pursuing higher studies in the United States of America – M.S. in Chemical Engineering at Columbia University. The issue in the lis is what happened between 2016 and 2020. On 12-08-2018, a suo motu crime comes to be registered by the respondent in Crime No.94 of 2018 for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.3. The arraigning of the petitioner happens on account of statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 recorded by the Police. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-08- 2018 at around 12 p.m. the police conduct a search in a particular house near Gurukripa apartmen