AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed by petitioner/accused No.59, seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.NDPS No.1 of 2026 pending on the file of Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and Sections 27, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act').
Heard Mr. T. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.16240 and 16561 of 2025, dated 18.02.2026.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the common order passed by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.16240 and 16561 of 2025, dated 18.02.2026, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.59 in SC.NDPS No.1 of 2026 pending on the file of Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 12, seeking to quash the proceedings in SC NDPS No.167 of 2025, on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.
Heard Sri E.Venkata Siddhartha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 22(c), 27A, 27(a), and 29 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "NDPS Act"), are not attracted against the petitioners. The petitioners were implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, i.e., accused No.4, and the same is impermissible in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu1.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners.
Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners were implicated as accused in the present case solely on the basis of the confession statement of accused No.4. It is trite law that the confession statement given by the accused is inadmissible under law, especially in view of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In Rajkumar Hariram Gameti v. State of Gujarat and another2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the law declared in Tofan Singh (supra), where a three-Judge Bench reconsidered the earlier decisions in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India3 and Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India4 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.
In Ravi Kumar @ Toni supra, the High Court of Delhi upheld the acquittal, observing several fatal lapses in the prosecution case, such as non-compliance with mandatory safeguards under Sections 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act, failure to properly inform the accused of his statutory rights, conducting a post-sunset search without a warrant or recorded reasons, and omission to join independent witnesses despite their availability. The Court also highlighted contradictions in police testimonies and the absence of supporting material such as CCTV footage or videography, indicating a poor investigation. Relying on State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh5, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat6, and State of Gujarat v. Jagraj Singh7, it held that strict procedural compliance is essential and the lapses rendered the recovery doubtful. Finding no perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning, the High Court dismissed the State's leave petition.
For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also for violation of the procedures laid down, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of process of law.
In the result, the criminal petitions are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 12, in SC NDPS No.167 of 2025, on the file of the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.