Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Proceedings Against Accused Based Solely on Co-Accused's Confession

on

 


Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Proceedings Against Accused Based Solely on Co-Accused's Confession

Case Title: C.K. Santhosh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Date of Judgment: 08.04.2025
Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.10719 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7154 and 7156 of 2025
Citation: Yet to be reported

Introduction

In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of evidentiary standards in criminal prosecution, especially under stringent statutes like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Madras High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a co-accused who was implicated solely based on the confession of a co-accused, with no recovery or independent corroborative evidence.

Brief Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint lodged at the R-9 Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai, based on a secret tip-off received by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Acting on the information, the police searched the premises of the first accused and recovered 8 kilograms of Ganja. Two samples of 50 grams each were collected for forensic analysis, and the first accused was arrested on the spot.

Based on the confession of the first accused, the petitioner, C.K. Santhosh, was arrayed as the second accused in Crime No. 758 of 2024. The allegations stated that the first accused was involved in selling Ganja along with the petitioner. The police also claimed to have seized the petitioner's bank passbook from the first accused.

A final report was filed under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The case was taken on file as C.C. No.138 of 2025 before the I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Submissions of the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that:

  • His implication in the case was solely based on the confession made by the co-accused (first accused).

  • No recovery of contraband or incriminating materials was made from him.

  • He had already been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.

  • The confession of a co-accused, without independent corroboration, is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

  • Relying solely on such inadmissible confession to prosecute him would be unjust and illegal.

Submissions of the Prosecution

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State submitted:

  • The first accused, during investigation, implicated the petitioner as a co-conspirator.

  • The passbook belonging to the petitioner was allegedly seized from the first accused.

  • The prosecution relied on the first accused’s confession and associated evidence to justify the petitioner's involvement.

Judgment and Legal Reasoning

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, after a detailed analysis of the case records and submissions, observed:

“Even according to the prosecution’s own case, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused only on the confession statement of the first accused. On the strength of this confession statement, there is no recovery from the petitioner. That apart, there is no incriminating material available to attract the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of NDPS Act as against the petitioner.”

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu (MANU/SC/1372/2024), where it was held:

“The sole material available against the Appellant is the confession statement of the co-accused... which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial... there can be no doubt that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no material at all... it would be a miscarriage of justice to make the person concerned to stand the trial.”

In light of this precedent and the lack of admissible evidence, the High Court held that forcing the petitioner to undergo a criminal trial would amount to misuse of the legal process and a violation of the petitioner’s right to fair trial.

The Court reiterated that Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act renders a confession made before a police officer inadmissible, unless it leads to a recoverable fact, which was not the case here.

Conclusion and Decision

The High Court concluded that:

  • There was no admissible evidence against the petitioner.

  • The prosecution was relying entirely on an inadmissible confession of the co-accused.

  • Forcing the petitioner to face trial would be contrary to the principles of justice.

Accordingly, the Court:

  • Allowed the Criminal Original Petition.

  • Quashed the proceedings in C.C. No.138 of 2025 as against the petitioner alone.

  • Directed the trial court to proceed against the first accused only.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling is a reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards against arbitrary prosecution. It underscores the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules, especially under draconian statutes like the NDPS Act, where the burden of proof is high and penalties are severe.

The judgment will likely serve as a guiding precedent for courts dealing with cases where co-accused are implicated solely based on inadmissible confessions, ensuring that personal liberty is not compromised without legal foundation.

Key Takeaways:

  • Confession by a co-accused without corroboration is not admissible against another accused.

  • Courts must be cautious while allowing prosecution based solely on incriminating statements not supported by material evidence.

  • Anticipatory bail, absence of recovery, and lack of direct evidence are strong grounds for quashing.

  • Justice system must avoid making individuals suffer the ordeal of trial when there is no prima facie case.

Comments

Post a Comment