NDPS Act: Co-accused Statement Alone Insufficient for Conviction, Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings - 2025-04-01

Karnataka High Court: Co-accused Confession Alone Cannot Implicate Under NDPS Act

Bengaluru, Karnataka – January 7, 2025 – In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed criminal proceedings against an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, reiterating that a confession by a co-accused, without any further corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for prosecution. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar presiding over the single bench delivered the order in Criminal Petition No. 12079 of 2024.

Case Background: Implication Based on Co-accused Statement

The petitioner, Siddaraju, was implicated as accused No. 3 in C.C. No. 17532/2018, pending before the 32nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bengaluru. The case stemmed from Crime No. 15/2017 registered by Rajajinagara Police based on information leading to the arrest of accused Nos. 1 and 2, Nandish H.J. and Pramod R.S., for offenses under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. Crucially, no contraband was recovered from Siddaraju. His name surfaced during the investigation based on the alleged voluntary statements of the initially arrested accused, Nandish and Pramod.

Aggrieved, Siddaraju filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) seeking to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that his implication was solely based on the inadmissible confession of co-accused.

Arguments Presented: Reliance on Apex Court Precedents

Advocate Chandrashekara K.A., representing the petitioner, argued that it was an “undisputed fact” that no narcotics were recovered from Siddaraju's possession, residence, or custody. He emphasized that Siddaraju was not named in the initial FIR and was only brought into the case based on the “alleged voluntary statement” of co-accused 1 and 2. Counsel cited several judgments from co-ordinate benches of the Karnataka High Court, which themselves relied upon the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu . These precedents established that in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, a mere voluntary statement from a co-accused is insufficient to implicate another individual, especially in NDPS cases.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor (Addl. SPP), Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, representing the respondents, argued for the dismissal of the petition, without elaborating further in the provided judgment excerpt.

Court's Reasoning: Tofan Singh and Subsequent Rulings Emphasized

Justice Krishna Kumar, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, sided with the petitioner. The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh , which unequivocally held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional statements in NDPS trials. The judgment cited several subsequent Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court rulings that reaffirmed this principle, including State v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta , Balwinder Singh v. Narcotics Control Bureau , Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan v. State of Gujarat , and Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat .

The court highlighted a pivotal excerpt from Tofan Singh which stated:

> “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. 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.”

The High Court also referred to its own co-ordinate bench decisions in Saikat Bhattacharyya Vs. Union of India , Afroz @ Afroz Pasha Vs. The State of Karnataka , and Raghavendra and another Vs. The State of Karnataka , which similarly quashed proceedings based on lack of evidence beyond co-accused confessions.

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against Siddaraju in C.C.No.17532/2018. The ruling reinforces the crucial legal principle that mere statements of co-accused, particularly under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, are not sufficient to sustain a conviction under the NDPS Act, especially when there is no independent recovery or corroborative evidence linking the accused to the alleged offense. This judgment serves as a significant reminder for law enforcement and prosecuting agencies to ensure robust investigation and evidence gathering beyond solely relying on co-accused statements in NDPS cases.