Madras HC Quashes Case Against Alleged Supplier In 117.85-Kg Ganja Seizure, As Co-Accused’s Police Confession Was His Only Link

A1 and A2 were allegedly found in possession of 117.850 kg of ganja, leading to registration of Crime No. 442 of 2023 under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was arrayed as A5 on the basis of A1’s confession, which alleged that A1 and A2 bought ganja from him and deposited money into a bank account at his instance. The prosecution produced no bank statement or other independent material corroborating that allegation.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 531 of 2024 under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Section 528 of the BNSS provides the basis for the High Court’s exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

The Court relied on Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, corresponding to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible against an accused.

Applying *Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu*, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it stated that officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for this purpose and that a statement recorded under Section 67 of that Act cannot be used as a confession against an accused in an NDPS trial.

The Court further reasoned that a co-accused’s confession, without independent legally admissible material, cannot alone sustain proceedings against the petitioner.

The petitioner’s alleged role as the supplier rested solely on A1’s confession; the prosecution had not produced the alleged bank records or other material to corroborate it.

Applying *Tofan Singh* and the statutory rule on confessions to police officers, the Court concluded that the confession could not constitute legally admissible evidence against the petitioner.

With no independent material capable of supporting the allegation at trial, the Court found that continuing the prosecution would not be justified.

It directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, to release the petitioner forthwith unless his detention was required in another case, and allowed the petition.