An NDPS conspiracy prosecution may proceed without individual recovery where independent material corroborates a co-accused’s confession.

The applicant, arraigned as accused No. 4, sought quashing of the complaint in Special NDPS Case No. 15 of 2025 alleging offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act

The NCB intercepted accused No. 1 and seized 4.534 kg of contraband, which the judgment’s factual account identifies as Alprazolam

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 1 implicated the applicant as a supplier; a search at her residence resulted in the recovery of ₹6,71,700, and the investigation relied on financial records, call records, WhatsApp communications and location data to allege her involvement

The applicant argued that the case against her rested on a co-accused’s statement and lacked independent evidence; the respondent maintained that the statement was corroborated by other material

Whether the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant warranting her trial

Whether the complaint and proceedings against the applicant should be quashed where the prosecution relied on a co-accused’s custodial statement alongside other alleged corroborative material

The alleged offences were under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act

The Court recognised that a custodial confession is weak evidence and requires corroboration, and that a co-accused’s evidence is also weak and should be supported by other material; it referred to Mohammed Fasrin v. State Represented by the Intelligence Officer, (2019) 8 SCC 811, and Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine 3803

The investigation also included electronic records accompanied by a certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

The Court’s stated inquiry at this stage was whether the collected material made out a prima facie case warranting trial

The Court found that the case against the applicant was not confined to the co-accused’s statement. It considered the alleged recovery of cash and documents from her residence, transactions of approximately ₹23 lakh into her son’s account, communications between the applicant and accused No. 1 and between the applicant and the alleged carrier, and location data placing the carrier and accused No. 1 near the alleged delivery location

Applying the requirement for corroborative material, the Court held that these investigative materials were sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to distinguish the case from one based solely on a custodial confession

The application to quash the complaint was dismissed