P.JK @ Jeyakumar vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30-09-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
CRL A(MD) No. 921 of 2024
CNR:{HCMD011153382024}
and
CRL A(MD) No. 914 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD010989892025}
and
CRL MP(MD) Nos. 20307 and 20346 of 2026
CRL A(MD) No. 921 of 2024
P.Rajkumar
S/o. Palpandi
Anpu Apartment
Ellisnagar
Madurai City
at present confined in Central Prison Madurai as
Convict Prisoner
..Appellant
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
S.S. Colony PS,
Madurai City,
Crime No. 229 of 2023.
..Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of BNSS praying
to call for the records, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by judgment
dated 05.09.2024 in C.C.No.782 of 2023 of I Additional Special Court for EC
and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and acquit the appellant herein of all the
charges.
For Appellant : Mr. V. Kathirvelu
Senior Advocate
for Na.Manimaran
__________
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
CRL A(MD) No. 914 of 2025
P.JK @ Jeyakumar
S/o. Pandiyan, Door No. 17, Sankar Nagar 1st Street
K.Pudur, Madurai District.
At present confined in Central Prison, Madurai,
as Convict Prisoner.
..Appellant
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
S.S. Colony PS,
Madurai City,
Crime No. 229 of 2023.
..Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 of BNSS praying
to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by
judgment dated 05.09.2024 in C.C.No.782 of 2023 of I Additional Special
Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and acquit the appellant herein of
all the charges.
For Appellant : Mr. M.Jagadeesh Pandian
for Na.Manimaran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction recorded
by the I Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in
C.C. No.782 of 2023, dated 05.09.2024.
__________
Page 2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
2. On a careful perusal of records, it is found that on 15.02.2023 at
around 11.30 hours P.W-6 Thiru.Boominathan had received a secret
information which he recorded vide Ex.P-8 and informed it to P.W-5
Ravindraprakash, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thideer Nagar L & O
Police Station and got the permission, endorsed on it from him to go on raid.
Thereafter, he left the police station along with P.W-1 Sub Inspector -
Alagumuthu, P.W-2 Nagasundar - Head Constable and Ganesh Prabhu –
Grade-I P.C, Ashok Kumar, Prabakaran, Varisai Mohammed and Santhosh
Kumar with necessary equipments along with the informant to Madurai-
Kochadai Melakkal Main Road.
3. On the way to Angala Eswari Nagar near MLM Sudharsan Apartment,
they intercepted an Eicher vehicle identified by the informant and found that
there were four persons, who were sitting in that vehicle in the front cabin. Out
of the four persons, two were jumped and escaped from there. The raiding team
rounded up the Eicher load vehicle and interrogated the inmates of the vehicle.
They introduced themselves as Senthil Prabhu (A-2) and Prabhakaran (A-1).
They further revealed that the names of the absconded co-Accused is A-3
Rajkumar and A-4 Jayakumar. P.W-6 informed them that they got secret
information that they are smuggling ganja in the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN-38-CU-1362 and therefore, wanted to search them and they have got
__________
Page 3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
every right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Judicial
Magistrate. But, they declined the offer and informed the police that they
themselves can search them. In this connection, P.W-6 has prepared Ex.P-1
Search Consent Letter for A-1 and Ex.P-2 Search Consent Letter for A-2.
Thereafter, they found that there were 24 white coloured polythene gunny bags
in the Eicher vehicle, which contains ganja weighing 951 Kgs. They arrested A-
1 and A-2 at the spot in the presence of the witnesses. They were served with
arrest intimation letter and obtained the signature of A-1 and A-2.
4. P.W-6 interrogated the first Accused in the presence of Village
Administrative Officer, Kochadai, P.W-3 Mr.Kameshwaran and Village
Assistant Mr.P.Udhayakumar and first Accused volunteered to give a
confession which he recorded and obtained the signature of the first Accused
and the signature of the witnesses. He recovered 24 gunny bags and a cell
phone used for smuggling the ganja. Thereafter, he recorded the confession of
A-2 in the presence of the same witnesses and A-2 has produced the Eicher
vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-38-CU-1362 and a cell phone which was
used for smuggling ganja.
5. The 24 white coloured polythene gunny bags contains 475 packets of
ganja separately with a total weight of 951 Kgs. They spread a tarpaulin, opened
the above packets and put the ganja in it, mixed well and then had taken two
samples each weighing 100 grams and packed it in khaki cover, tied and affixed
__________
Page 4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
the SHO seal and pasted the details slip and identified them as S-1 and S-2.
They were marked as MO-1 and MO-2. The signatures of the witnesses and
Accused were obtained in the samples. The remaining 850.800 kilograms of
ganja was packed in 15 white coloured polythene gunny bags, each weighing 60
kilograms of ganja and the remaining 50.800 kilograms of ganja was packed in
another bag and tied to them all and affixed the SHO seal and pasted a slip and
obtained the signature of the Accused and witnesses identified them as Ex.P-1
to Ex.P-16. The 475 khaki coloured polythene cover were marked as C1 to
C475. The 24 numbers of white coloured polythene gunny bags were identified
and marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-24. Then they returned to the police station
along with the Accused and seized goods and registered Ex.P-12 First
Information Report in Crime No.229/2023 as against four Accused for the
offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the
NDPS Act.
6. Thereafter, PW-6 has prepared Ex.P-9 detailed report under Section 57
of the NDPS Act and submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police for
perusal. Then he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-7
Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-13 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses
P.W-4 Alagumalai and Murugan. Thereafter, the Investigation Officer has
examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The seized goods were
forwarded to the Court vide Ex.P-14 Form-91 and the Accused were forwarded
__________
Page 5 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
to judicial custody. The seized articles were received by the Court on
20.02.2023 vide RPR No.125/2023.
7. Thereafter, he sent Ex.P-15 requisition to the Court to send the sample
ganja for chemical examination. The Court vide Ex.P-16 forwarded the same
samples for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Ex.P-17
Chemical Examiner's report reveals that the samples are cannabinoids and they
are ganja. He examined Ms.Vidyarani, Chemical Examiner and recorded her
statement and examined the Head Clerk Gurusamy and Grade-I Constable
Chellapandi and recorded their statements.
8. On 13.03.2023, P.W-6 filed an application before the Principal
Sessions Court, under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. As per the said order, the
goods were weighed and samples of 100 grams each were taken again from the
16 bags in the presence of Judicial Magistrate No.V and photographs were also
taken. Thereafter, he went in search of the absconded Accused Jayakumar (A-4)
and Rajkumar (A-3). P.W-6 came to know that the absconded Accused
Rajkumar was arrested on 09-05-2023 by Keeraithurai Police. He was in
judicial custody in a case registered by them in Crime No.374/2023 for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the
NDPS Act. Therefore, on 31.05.2023, P.W-6 formally arrested the Accused
Rajkumar and gave a requisition under Section 167(3) of Cr.P.C to take him
under police custody.
__________
Page 6 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
9. On 07.06.2023, he had taken him in his custody for one day as per the
order of the Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases from 07.06.2023 4 p.m.
to 08.06.2023 4 p.m. He interrogated Accused Rajkumar and recorded his Ex.P-
19 statement. Thereafter, he came to know that A-4 Jayakumar was arrested on
12.06.2023 by Keeraithurai Police and was remanded in case in Crime
No.374/2023 and was in judicial custody. Therefore, on 19.06.2023 he formally
arrested A-4 and on 28.06.2023, he gave requisition under Section 167(3) of
Cr.P.C., seeking for his custody. On 30.03.2023, he was given custody between
30.06.2023 at 17 hours and 01.07.2023 at 17 hours. On 01.07.2023 he
interrogated A-4 and recorded his statement vide Ex.P-20. On 02.07.2023, he
examined P.W-5, Assistant Commissioner of Police and recorded the statement.
After completing investigation, he laid final report before the Special Court for
EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
10. The Special Court has taken cognizance of the said final report in
C.C.No. 782 of 2023. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents
relied on by the prosecution were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the trial Court has framed the charges against the Accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the
NDPS Act. The charges were explained to all the Accused and the Accused
denied the said charges. Therefore, they are tried by the trial court.
__________
Page 7 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
11. On the side of the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-6 were examined,
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-20 were marked and MO-1 to MO-8 were also marked. Upon
closure of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating materials appeared in
the evidence were put to the Accused under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. which
they denied as false. Though they claimed that they have witnesses to be
examined on their side, they have not examined any witnesses and therefore, the
defence side evidence was also closed.
12. After hearing both sides, the trial Court has found A-1 to A-4 guilty
of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act
and sentenced them to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
three years. However, the trial Court has found the appellants not guilty of the
offence punishable under Sections 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act and acquitted
them from the said charges.
13. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, A-3
has presented the appeal in Crl. A. (MD) No.921 of 2024 and A-4 has presented
the Crl. A. (MD) No.914 of 2025. The Accused A-1 and A-2 have not preferred
any appeal challenging their conviction. Similarly, the State has not preferred
any appeal as against the order of acquittal passed against the Accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
__________
Page 8 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
14. Since these two appeals arose from the same judgement, this Court
is inclined to take up the said appeals together and disposed of by way of this
common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred
to as per their ranking before the trial court.
15. In these appeals, the learned Senior Counsel/learned Counsel
appearing for appellants were heard. The learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) was heard for the State. The trial Court records are called for
and perused.
16. Point of consideration:
Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court as against
the appellants/A-3 and A-4 is sustainable?
Answer:
17. On a careful perusal of records, it is found that it is the case of the
prosecution that on 15.02.2023 at about 11.30 hours on getting secret
information, the respondent police have gone to the place of occurrence i.e,.
near Kochadi Main Road, Angala Eswari Nagar near MLM Sudharsan
Apartment and at about 12.15 hours, intercepted an Eicher lorry bearing
Registration No.TN-38-CU-1362 and on seeing the police, out of the four
persons travelled in the cabin, two persons escaped and two were nabbed and on
search, they were found in possession of 951 kgs of ganja and therefore, the
action of the appellant and the other co-Accused is punishable under Sections
__________
Page 9 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. To substantiate the said
case, the prosecution has examined P.W-1 to P.W-6 and marked Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-20 and MO-1 to MO-8 were also marked.
18. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that as per the case of the prosecution, the appellants herein have
escaped from the scene of crime and therefore, the entire recovery of 951 kgs of
ganja were shown as against Accused 1 and 2. They have not preferred any
appeal as against their conviction. Only based on the confession of co-Accused
A-1 and A-2, the appellants were implicated in the present case. Except the co-
Accused confession, nothing is available on record to implicate the appellants
herein. Though the charges were framed under Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS
Act, the appellants were acquitted from the said charges and no appeal was
preferred by the State. There was a delay in registration of FIR and no
independent witnesses to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned
counsels the appellants prays for the acquittal.
19. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported in CDJ 2018 SC 789 to say that
apart from the statement of co-Accused there is no material suggesting
involvement of the appellant in crime in question. Therefore, in the absence of
any substantive evidence, it would be inappropriate to base conviction of
__________
Page 10 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
appellant purely on statements of co-Accused. Further, the learned counsel for
the appellants relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
Mohammed Fasrin v. State rep. By the Intelligence Officer, reported in CDJ
2019 SC 1560 wherein the Honourable Apex Court relied on a decision of the
Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31 held that a statement recorded under Section 67
of the NDPS Act can be considered as a confessional statement even if the said
statement was recorded by an officer not to be treated as a Police Officer. The
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the confession, especially when it was recorded
while the Accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be
some corroborative evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the
confession by itself cannot be basis for conviction.
20. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the State submitted that on 15.02.2023 at about 11.30 hours on
getting secret information, the respondent police have gone to the place of
occurrence i.e,. near Kochadi Main Road, Angala Eswari Nagar near MLM
Sudharsan Apartment and at about 12.15 hours, intercepted an Eicher lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-38-CU-1362 and on seeing the police, out of the
four persons travelled in the cabin, two persons escaped and two were nabbed
and on search, they were found in possession of 951 kgs of ganja and therefore,
the actions of the appellant and the other co-Accused is punishable under
Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. To substantiate
__________
Page 11 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
the said case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-6 and marked Ex.P1
to Ex.P-20 and MO-1 to MO-8 were also marked.
21. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted
that after hearing both sides, the trial Court has found A-1 to A-4 guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and
sentenced them to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
three years. However, the trial Court has found the appellants not guilty of the
offence punishable under Sections 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act and acquitted
them from the said charges. The judgment of the trial Court has no infirmity
and the same has to be confirmed and these appeals have to be dismissed.
22. According to the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the State, the prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed the
manner in which the offence was committed and the complicity of the
appellants herein. He further contended that P.W-6 on getting Ex.P-8 secret
information, reported the same to his higher official, P.W-5, and got the
permission endorsed on it from him to go on raid and thereby he complied with
the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Further, they have proceeded to
the scene of occurrence along with the informant and intercepted MO-8 Eicher
Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-38-CU-1362 in which four persons were
travelled in the cabin. On seeing the police, two of them had fled away from the
__________
Page 12 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
scene of crime and the remaining two were apprehended. The raiding party had
informed about their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer
or Judicial Magistrate as required under Section 50 of NDPS Act and obtained
Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 Search consent letter wherein A-1 and A-2 have agreed to be
searched by the police officers themselves. The search revealed that A1 and A2
were found in possession of 951 kgs of ganja in 24 white coloured polythene
gunny bags. They were seized under the cover of mahazar and forwarded to the
Court after drawn up sample MO-1 and MO-2 in the presence of the witnesses.
The samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis
report which reveals that the contraband is ganja. The police arrested A-1 and
A-2 and from the voluntary confession statement of the Accused A-1 and A-2
were found the involvement of -3 and A-4. The presence of A-3 and A-4 were
spoken to by the raiding party and the witnesses to the raid.
23. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side), the confession of a co-Accused is relevant under Section 30 of the
Evidence Act which is corroborated by the other eyewitnesses. The learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) contended that the prosecution has
proved the involvement of the appellants herein beyond all reasonable doubts.
The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) relied on the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar reported in
AIR 1964 SC 1184.
__________
Page 13 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
24. This court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions put forth by either side. On a careful perusal of records, it is found
that it is the case of the prosecution that on 15.02.2023 at about 11.30 hours on
getting secret information, the respondent police have gone to the place of
occurrence i.e,. near Kochadi Main Road, Angala Eswari Nagar near MLM
Sudharsan Apartment and at about 12.15 hours, intercepted an Eicher lorry
bearing Registration No.TN-38-CU-1362 and on seeing the police, out of the
four persons travelled in the cabin, two persons escaped and two were nabbed
and on search, they were found in possession of 951 kgs of ganja and therefore,
the actions of the appellant and the other co-Accused is punishable under
Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. To substantiate
the said case, the prosecution has examined P.W-1 to P.W-6 and marked Ex.P-1
to Ex.P-20 and MO-1 to MO-8 were also marked.
25. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that these appellants A-3
and A-4 have fled away from the scene of crime at the time of the apprehension
itself. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has contended that in
Ex.P-8 secret information, the names of the A-3 and A-4 were recorded.
Further, P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 have clearly deposed that four persons
travelled in the Eicher Lorry and two of them have absconded. The apprehended
Accused A-1 and A-2 have revealed the name of the appellants A-3 and A-4
when they were interrogated. Apart from that, they have given confession
__________
Page 14 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
implicating A-3 and A-4. Further, A-3 and A-4 were arrested and they were
taken custody and their statements were recorded wherein they admitted that
they have also travelled in MO-8 Eicher Lorry. Therefore, according to the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the involvement of the
appellants were proved.
26. On a careful perusal of the recording of the secret information by
P.W-6, it is found that the name of the appellants were found. The said Ex.P-8
reached the Court on 16.02.2023. Further, on careful perusal of records, it is
found that the co-Accused A-1 and A-2 have given Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6
confession statements revealing the names of the appellants with the police who
have fled away from the scene of occurrence. Further, Ex.P-19 is the statement
of A-3 Rajkumar given to Investigation Officer. Ex.P-20 is the statement of A-4
given to Investigation Officer. The prosecution relied upon only these materials
to base a conviction of the appellants in the above crime. However, the learned
counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court
in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence reported in CDJ 2018 SC 789 wherein the Honourable Apex Court
relied on its earlier decision in Kanhaiyalal vs Union of India reported in
(2008) 4 SCC 668 wherein it has held as below:
“7. For the present purposes, we will proceed on the footing that the
statements of co-Accused were recorded under and in terms of Section 67
of the NDPS Act. As regards such statements, a bench of two Judges of
this Court after referring to and relying upon the earlier Judgments,
observed in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India1 , as under:
__________
Page 15 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
“45. Considering the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS
Act and the views expressed by this Court in Raj Kumar
Karwal case2 with which we agree, that an officer vested
with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station
under Section 53 of the above Act is not a “police officer”
within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it is
clear that a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act is not the same as a statement made under Section 161
of the (2008) 4 SCC 668 (1990) 2 SCC 409 Code, unless
made under threat or coercion. It is this vital difference,
which allows a statement made under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act to be used as a confession against the person
making it and excludes it from the operation of Sections 24
to 27 of the Evidence Act.”
27. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs State of
Tamil Nadu reported in (2013) 16 SCC 31 doubted the correctness of the
decision in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India cited supra and referred the matter to the
Larger Bench. The larger Bench in the decision reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 by
2:1 majority answered the reference as below:
“155.We answer the reference by stating:
(i) 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 .
(ii) 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 .”
28. Further, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Haricharan
Kurmi vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 observed as under:
“4. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants lie
within a narrow compass, and so far as the point which falls to be
considered in the present appeals is concerned, there is no dispute in
__________
Page 16 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
respect of the said facts. Deokinandan Jaiswal is a fairly wealthy
businessman and lives in village Dumarbana within the police station
of Bairgania in the district of Muzaffarpur. He has a house of his own.
Achheylal and Ram Bachan served under him as minims. Jogender
Sinch was Jaiswal's sepoy and Ram Surat was his personal servant.
The appellants are the co-villagers of Jogender Singh who was one of
the Accused persons. It appears that on the 24th March, 1960, Jaiswal
had received Rs. 15,000 in currency notes from his partner Nathan
Mary in the presence of his minims Achheylal and Ram Bachan; in
fact, as the said amount was handed over to Jaiswal in the form of
different currency notes, Ram Bachan and Achheylal were asked by
him to count the said amount. The said amount was then put in
different bundles by Jaiswal and to it was added another amount of Rs.
2,000 which he took out from his iron safe. The two bundles were then
put together in a bigger bundle and to it was attached a slip containing
his signature and date. According to Jaiswal, he handed over the
amount of Rs. 17,000 thus put in two bundles to his wife Damyanti
Devi, and in her turn, she put the said bundles into the iron safe which
had been kept at the first floor of the house in the room adjoining the
bed-room. About this time, some functions were organised by the
Bharat Sevak Samaj in the village and Jaiswal was the convener in
regard to the said functions. Naturally, he had to attend to the
delegates who had come to the village for the said functions. During
the days of these functions, Jaiswal used to return home by about 10
P.m., but on the night of the 24th March, 1960, the function went on
late, and so, Jaiswal slept at the Dharamshala where the function took
'Place and did not return home. That is how Damvanti Devi was left
alone in the house on the first floor and her only companion was her
child Mina about 3 1/2 years old. Apparently, Damyanti Devi retired
to her bed-room with her little child and on the ground floor were
sleeping three of the Accused persons, Achheylal, Ram Bachan and
Jogender Singh Ram Surat was on leave, so that out of the four
servants employed by Jaiswal, three were sleeping on the premises.
Batahu, the cook of the family, was sleeping in a verandah attached to
the motor garage.”
29. Therefore, in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court cited supra,
it is clear that the statement under Section 67 amounts to confession and the
confession being a weak piece of evidence cannot be the sole basis for
conviction without any corroborating material. The judgment relied on by the
appellants by the Apex Court in Mohammed Fasrin v. State rep. By the
__________
Page 17 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
Intelligence Officer, reported in CDJ 2019 SC 1560 is also to that effect.
30. From the above decisions, it is clear that even assuming that a
statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act amounts to a confession, as
per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi vs. State
of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 in which the learned Government
Advocate (Criminal Side) has also placed reliance. The Honourable Apex Court
has made it very clear that the confession of a co-Accused is not an evidence
within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. But it is only a matter to
be considered along with other substantive piece of evidence. Further, the
confession to a Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence unless a fact
discovered by the said confession and supported by a subsequent recovery. In
this case, the involvement of the appellants came to light even before the
confession of the co-Accused, therefore, the statement of the Co Accused
cannot be considered as a disclosure made by them. Therefore, Ex.P-19 and
Ex.P-20 is inadmissible in evidence as it is given to the Police Officer. Even if it
is not a confession, the said statement given to a Police Officer after
commencement of the investigation and therefore, it cannot be proved in lieu of
bar under Section 162 of Cr.P.C.
31. On going through the entire materials placed before the trial Court, it
is found that except the confession of the co-Accused, nothing is available on
__________
Page 18 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
record to prove the involvement of the appellants herein. Though the
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) had claimed that the eyewitnesses and
the raiding party had seen the appellants fleeing away from the scene of crime,
on a careful perusal of records, the witnesses P.W-1 and P.W-2 have only
deposed that the appellants have fled away from the scene of crime. The
evidence of PW-3 independent witness is only a hearsay in nature. Even P.W-1
and P.W-2 have not identified the appellants herein are the one who have fled
away from the scene of crime in the dock. Further, the appellants are absolute
strangers to the raiding party. No identification parade was conducted after they
were secured by the Investigation Officer. Therefore, except the confession
statement of the co-Accused, nothing is available on record to show that the
appellants hearing are also involved in the above crime.
32. As per the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellants, the confession of the co-Accused is not a substantive piece of
evidence and therefore, that alone cannot be a basis for conviction of the
appellants herein. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellants by judgment dated 05.09.2024 in C.C.No.782 of 2023 of the learned
I Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, is hereby set
aside.
33. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellants in both appeals in C.C. No.782 of 2023,
__________
Page 19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
dated 05.09.2024, by the learned Additional District Judge, I Additional Special
Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, are set aside. The appellants are in
custody, they are set at liberty at once. The fine amounts, if any, paid are
ordered to be refunded to the appellants in both appeals. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SRM
__________
Page 20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
To
1. The I Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
S.S. Colony Police Station,
Madurai City.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Madurai.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madras.
Copy To :
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
__________
Page 21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )
CRL A(MD) Nos.921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
SRM
Common Judgment made in
CRL A(MD) Nos. 921 of 2024 and 914 of 2025
11-11-2026
__________
Page 22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:18:08 pm )