Statement Recorded U/S 67 NDPS Act Can’t Be Used To Convict An Accused: Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings Against Student Of Columbia University
|The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against a student of Columbia University while noting that there was not an iota of corroboration except confessional statements of other accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the Act.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC arising out of a case registered for the offences under Sections 8C, 20(B)(II)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and quoted, “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.”
Advocate Mahantesh Shettar appeared for the Appellant and Government Pleader Thejesh P appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner, a former B. Tech student at Manipal Institute of Technology (MIT) is now pursuing an M.S. in Chemical Engineering at Columbia University. A suo motu case was registered against him when he was in MIT and was named as accused no 3 based on statements by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The police seized ganja from the two accused persons who claimed that the petitioner introduced them to the substance. The petitioner was allegedly absconding and was later shown as an absconder in the charge sheet. After returning to the country and learning of the charges, the petitioner filed a petition to quash the proceedings against him.
The Court said that the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued, as there is not an iota of corroboration that would pin the petitioner to the offences, except the voluntary/confessional statements of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as is considered by the Apex Court on an interplay between Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 67 of the Act.
“The Petitioner, who is a student pursuing his Masters elsewhere, beyond the shores of the nation, should not be made to suffer for the voluntary / confessional statements of the co-accused.”, the Court remarked.
Finally, the Court quashed the proceedings and allowed the Criminal Petition.
Cause Title: Paritosh Chandrashekar Kulkarni v. State of Karnataka