Shek Naseer Useen @ Shaik Nazeer Hussian vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012583282026}
Shek Naseer Useen @ Shaik Nazeer Hussian
S/o. Abidh Alikhan,
No.Anjineyar Kovil Backside,
Sivapuram Street,
Narsippatinam Town,
Anagapalli Distric,
Andra Pradesh
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Rep by The Inspector of Police,
M-2, MM Colony Police Station,
Chennai
Crime No.442 of 2023
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
praying to call for the records in CC.No.531 of 2024 on the file of Principal
Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Court at Chennai in Crime
No.442 of 2023 and quash the same as against these petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Subburaj
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Order
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records
pertaining to C.C.No.531 of 2024, on the file of the learned Principal Special
Judge, Special Court under the EC and NDPS Acts, Chennai, arising out of
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
Crime No.442 of 2023, and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are
concerned.
2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 were found in possession
of 117.850 Kgs of ganja. Pursuant to the recovery, the respondent police
registered a case in Crime No.442 of 2023 for the alleged offences under
Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act,
1985. Based on the confession statement of A1, the other accused persons were
implicated in the case, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as A5. The
petitioner, who hails from Andhra Pradesh, was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody and is presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal.
3.The further allegation of the prosecution, based on the confession
statement of A1, is that A1 and A2 used to purchase the contraband from A5,
who is residing in Andhra Pradesh, and that, at the instance of A5, A1 and A2
deposited the money into a bank account. However, the prosecution has failed
to produce any bank statement or other documentary evidence to establish the
alleged financial transactions or to corroborate the said allegation. Except for
the confession statement of A1, no other material is available to implicate the
petitioner in the present case.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
4.The confession statement of a co-accused cannot be treated as
substantive evidence. In the absence of any independent or corroborative
material, it would not be appropriate to proceed against the petitioner solely on
the basis of such a confession statement. Further, in view of Section 25 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made by an accused to a police officer
is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon by the prosecution to
secure a conviction.
5.Further, Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act prohibits the production,
manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, use,
consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export
from India or transhipment of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance,
except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent
provided under the Act. In the present case, no material has been placed on
record to establish that the petitioner had indulged in any of the activities
prohibited under the said provision.
6.Therefore, the only material available against the petitioner is the
confession statement of the co-accused, which, by itself, cannot be treated as
substantive evidence to sustain the prosecution. In the absence of any
independent material capable of being translated into admissible evidence
during trial, compelling the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial would
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
amount to a miscarriage of justice. The confession statement of the co-accused,
in the absence of any other incriminating material, cannot form the sole basis
for proceeding against the petitioner.
7.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed on record.
8.On perusal of the records it is revealed that A1 and A2 were found in
possession of 117.850 Kgs of ganja. Based on the confession statement of A1,
the other accused persons were implicated in the case, wherein the petitioner
has been arrayed as A5. The petitioner, who hails from Andhra Pradesh, was
arrested and remanded to judicial custody and is presently confined in Central
Prison, Puzhal.
9.Furthermore, the confession statement of a co-accused cannot form the
basis of the prosecution in the absence of any legally admissible material. The
alleged confession statement of the co-accused recorded by the police is hit by
Section 23 of the BSA, corresponding to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, and is inadmissible in view of the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court of India in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in
(2021) 4 SCC 1 , wherein it was held that the officers invested with powers
under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that a confessional statement
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional
statement against an accused in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
Consequently, in the present case also, the alleged confession statement of the
co-accused cannot be constituted as legally admissible evidence against the
petitioner. Equally, the confession statement of the co-accused also cannot be
translated into admissible evidence at the stage of trial.
10.In view of the above discussions, the impugned proceeding against the
petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
proceedings in C.C.No.531 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Special Judge,
Special Court under EC and NDPS Act at Chennai, insofar as the petitioner/A5
alone is hereby quashed. In view of the same, the Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal, is directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if his
detention is not required in connection with any other case. Accordingly, this
Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AH
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
To
1.The Principal Special Judge,
Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal.
3.The Inspector of Police,
M-2, MM Colony Police Station, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
AH
CRL OP No. 31964 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 08:48:12 pm )