Confessional statements of a co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible and cannot serve as the sole basis for prosecuting or convicting an accused without independent corroborating evidence.

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.9/2024 (SPL.CC.NO.1589/2024) OF R.T.NAGARA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 8(c), 22(c), 29 OF NDPS ACT, 1985, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED XXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES, AT BENGALURU (CCH-35).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner - accused No.2 is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.1589 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Harish Kumar M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.9 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act against accused no.1. The statement of accused No. 1 is recorded. While so recording, the name of the petitioner springs in the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was a friend of Accused No. 1, supplied drugs to him, and maintained contact with drug suppliers. Based on this allegation the petitioner is drawn into the web of crime by arraying him as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. Barring this, there is no recovery from the hands of the petitioner of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. All the recovery is from the hands of accused No.1. Further, the investigation records do not disclose any evidence establishing the fact that the petitioner supplied drugs to the accused No.1.

4. Therefore, the petitioner is now pinned down solely on the voluntary statement of the co-accused, which cannot be permitted to be continued in light of the settled principle of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of TOFAN SINGH v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU¹(2021) 4 SCC 1 which has been followed by this Court in the case of PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA²2024 SCC OnLine Kar 4785, wherein this Court holds 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 place and it is because of the petitioner that they have got into the habit of consuming ganja. These are statements rendered by accused Nos. 1 and 2. This is again a matter of record.

9. The petitioner is dragged into the crime as accused No. 3 and in the charge sheet as absconder only on the confessional statements made by accused Nos. 1 and 2. There is no corroboration of any of the fact that became attachable to th