Uncorroborated statement of a co-accused is insufficient evidence to frame charges under the NDPS Act.

On April 29, 2003, prohibition officers acting on secret information seized approximately 2.108 kg of charas from a hut in Surat

The tenant of the hut named the owner, Aayeshabanu, as the person who stored the contraband.

Upon her arrest, Aayeshabanu disclosed that the contraband was supplied by the respondent-accused

As the respondent was absconding, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed later, resulting in NDPS Case No. 2 of 2004

Before framing charges, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Surat, discharged the respondent via an order dated June 14, 2005

The State challenged this discharge, arguing that the court failed to properly interpret Section 29 of the NDPS Act regarding conspiracy

Notably, the co-accused (the respondent’s wife) had already been tried and acquitted in a separate proceeding (NDPS Case No. 29 of 2003)

1. Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in discharging the respondent-accused prior to the framing of charges

2. Whether the statement of a co-accused, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, is sufficient to proceed with a trial under the NDPS Act

The court primarily applied Section 397 and Section 401 of the CrPC, which define the limits of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that such power is to be exercised only to correct patent defects or errors of jurisdiction

It relied on Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court precedent in Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2011), which established that an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused cannot be relied upon as substantial evidence

Furthermore, the court applied the principles from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022), holding that a revisional court should not reappreciate evidence or upset findings of fact unless they are found to be perverse or arbitrary

The High Court observed that the respondent was implicated solely on the basis of a statement made by the co-accused, Aayeshabanu, during her interrogation

The prosecution failed to produce any independent evidence or corroborative material to link the respondent to the crime

The court noted that the co-accused had already undergone a full-fledged trial on the same set of facts and was acquitted, which weakened the prosecution's case for seeking a trial against the respondent

Applying the Ram Singh doctrine, the court held that the statement of a co-accused is not substantial evidence

Regarding the scope of revision, the court reasoned that the trial court had appropriately appreciated the facts and exercised its discretion within the law.

Since the State failed to demonstrate any "palpable error" or "perversity" in the trial court's reasoning, there was no ground for the High Court to substitute its own view for that of the lower court

The court held that the trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error, as the respondent could not be put to trial based exclusively on an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused who had already been acquitted

All interim reliefs were vacated, and the rule was discharged