The court held that confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused, and call detail records alone do not establish complicity in drug trafficking.

ORDER :

The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused No.5 in S.C. No. 127 of 2023 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the dismissal of the discharge application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C .

2. There are altogether five accused. The offences alleged against accused Nos. 1 to 3 are under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and the offence alleged against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 is under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 19.08.2022 at 11.30 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in possession of 21.450 kilograms of Ganja in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules while they were transporting the same in a car bearing registration No. TN-09-BF-1275. The allegation against the petitioner and the accused No. 4 is that they arranged and sent money to the accused No. 2 to purchase the seized contraband.

4. The petitioner appeared at the trial court. He filed an application for discharge as Crl.M.P.No. 12 of 2023 on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The trial court, upon consideration of the records of the case and after hearing the submission of the petitioner as well as the prosecution, formed an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offence and accordingly dismissed the application as per Annexure 1 order which is impugned in this Crl. R.P.

5. I have heard Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned Senior Counsel, as instructed by Sri. Satheesh Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the witnesses and the materials on record would reveal that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner in any way conspired with the remaining accused to commit the alleged offence. The trial court ought to have discharged the petitioner under S.227 of Cr.P.C , submitted the counsel. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials on record to prima - facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and when prima - facie case is established, the jurisdiction under S.227 of Cr.P.C to discharge the accused cannot be invoked. The trial court has rightly dismissed the discharge application, submitted the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. It is settled that, at the stage of consideration of the application for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials on record produced by the prosecution, nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At this stage, the court is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor made available to me the entire case diary. The prosecution case, as revealed in the final report, is that on 19/08/2022 at 11.30 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in possession of 21.450 kilograms of Ganja while they were transporting the same in a car bearing Registration No.TN-09-BF-1275. Initially, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were alone arrayed as the accused. Based on the confession of accused No.2, after his arrest, accused No.4 was arrayed as an accused. Thereafter, based on the confession of the accused No.4, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused.

9. The case diary shows that accused No.2 confessed to the police that accused No.4 and the petitioner arranged money for purchasing the Ganja.