Voluntary/Confessional Statement Made U/S 67 Of NDPS Act Cannot Be Used As Evidence Against Accused: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a 25-year-old and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (NDPS), after a parcel containing ganja was seized from a courier company having his mobile number on it.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Saikat Bhatacharyya and quashed the proceedings under section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(A), 23(a), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Act.
The court said “The proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued, as there is not an iota of corroboration that would pin down the petitioner to the offences, except the voluntary/confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which is clearly hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”
The petitioner had argued that there was no recovery of any contraband substance from him and neither the parcel showed his address of the petitioner. The petitioner was interrogated and in the interrogation, he had confessed to the crime. However, the voluntary statement or confession statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as evidence against the maker of the statement.
The prosecution also submitted that apart from the statements that were tendered by the petitioner there is no corroborative material that would pin down the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
The bench on going through the records noted that apart from the confession statement recorded by the respondent police of the petitioner, there is no other material that can pin down the petitioner, as the parcel contained ganja, the address was not that of the petitioner nor it was in the name of the petitioner, except the mysterious printing of the telephone number on the cover.
Relying on Apex court judgments the court said “Permitting further proceedings against the petitioner who at any point in time was not alleged to be involved in any crime except in the aforesaid statement, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.”
Appearance: Advocates Shivaram Sharma Buddhiraju, Tahura Anzar for Petitioner.
CGC H Mallan Goud for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
Case Title: Saikat Bhatacharyya AND Union of India.
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3 OF 2024