Confessional statements of a co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible for trial purposes under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot serve as the sole evidence to link an accused to a crime without independent corroboration.

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGESHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO. 21/2025 OF VIJAYANAGARA P.S PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR AT MYSURU IN SPL.C.C. 168/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE 20(b)(ii)(B) OF NDPS ACT, 1985, ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.5 is alleged of offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').

2. Heard Sri.Rakshith.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Sowmya.R., learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner along with others gets embroiled in a crime, in Crime No.21 of 2025. The police conducted investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the five accused. The petitioner is accused No.5. How the petitioner gets into the web of crime is only by the statement of the co-accused. A perusal at the documents appended to the petition would clearly indicate that the petitioner is drawn into the web of proceedings only on the statement of the co-accused. The voluntary statement of the other accused cannot be the reason for drawing the co-accused into the web of proceedings, is by now too well settled a principle of law, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TOFAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU¹(2021) 4 SCC 1 has held as follows:

"158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”

4. In an identical circumstance, this Court considering the purpose of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and following the judgment of the Apex Court in TOFAN SINGH (supra), in the case of MR.PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA²Crl.P.No.1850 of 2023, DD: 19.07.2024 has held as follows:

"8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that when the crime was registered and the house was searched, it related only to accused Nos. 1 and 2. Statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded under Section 67 of the Act. Section 67 of the Act reads as follows:

“67. Power to call for information, etc.—Any officer referred to in Section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provision of this Act—

(a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder;

(b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;

(c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The empowered officer is entitled to record the statement of the accused in terms of the afore-quoted provision of the Act. The statements of accused 1 and 2 were recorded. When the search was conducted the petitioner was not found anywhere. It is the case of accused Nos. 1 and 2 while giving statements that the petitioner ran away from the plac