HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3508 AND 3525 of 2026 Date: 07.04.2026 Between:

Mr. Nalla Rathan ...Petitioner/Accused No.9 in Crl.P.No.3508 of 2026 Mr. C. Chaitanya ...Petitioner/Accused No.9 in Crl.P.No.3525 of 2026 AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad ...Respondent : COMMON ORDER :

Crl.P.No.3508 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 and Crl.P.No.3525 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.9 seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.NDPS.No.140 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for the offence under Sections 21(a), 21(b), 22(c), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Omar A. Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners were not present at the scene of offence nor did the police seize any contraband from the possession of the petitioners. However, based on the confessional statement given by accused No.4, the petitioners were implicated as an accused and the same is not permitted under law in view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 67 of the NDPS of the Act. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the confessional statement given by the co-accused is true or not will be determined during the course of trial, and the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners were implicated as an accused for the offences under Sections 21(a), 21(b), 22(c), 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act solely based on the confessional statement given by accused No.4. The prosecution has not placed any other material to link the petitioner as an accused to the present case, except the confessional statement of accused No.4.

6. It is trite law that the confession statement given by the co-accused is inadmissible under law, especially in view of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

7. In Rajkumar Hariram Gameti supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the law declared in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, where a three-Judge Bench reconsidered the earlier decisions in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, (2008) 4 SCC 668 and Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 409 and held that officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” for the purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering any confessional statement made to them inadmissible. It was further clarified that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be treated or relied upon as confessional statements for the purpose of convicting an accused under the NDPS Act.

8. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.

9. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in SC.NDPS.No.140 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, against the petitioner/accused Nos.6 and 9, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 07.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. in a week.

mar