Home > Recent Judgements > Confessional Statement Made In Accordance With Section 67 Of The Ndps Act Cannot Be Used Against The Accused
Oct 21, 2024
BACKGROUND
In the case between Saikat Bhatacharyya versus Union of India. In this case, a 25-year-old petitioner was implicated under various sections of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (“NDPS”),1985, after a parcel containing Ganja was seized from a courier company with his mobile number on it. However, there was no recovery of contraband from the petitioner, nor was the parcel addressed to him. During interrogation, the petitioner had confessed to the crime, but the confession made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was deemed inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. With no corroborating material beyond the confession, the Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings, citing lack of evidence and potential abuse of legal process.
ISSUES
- Whether the proceedings commenced against the petitioner on account of Section 67 statement of the NDPS Act, seeking solely the pardonable words, which are unoccupied by evidence in its turn, been reasoned correctly?
- Is it sufficient for the purpose of dropping the cases if no Ganja is seized from the petitioner, petitions of his name and address are absent from the parcels of drug seized, and only his mobile phone number can be found on the package?
- Whether the case against the petitioner will be a matter of abuse of law and will be a source of misery if the case is continued against the petitioner in the absence of further evidence?
JUDGEMENT
The judgment given by the Karnataka High Court in this case is the setting aside of the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner under different provisions of the NDPS Act. The court determined that it was not admissible under Indian Evidence Act section 25, apart from the confession made by the petitioner under section 67 of the NDPS Act, which did not have any strong corroborative evidence.
The highlighted points in the judgment include:
- Lack of evidence: The court pointed out that no evidence regarding the recovery of the contraband from the petitioner’s premises was produced, and the illegal ganja parcel had no name or address of the petitioner other than his mobile number.
- Confession not admissible: During the interrogation process, the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act allowed the petitioner to be absolved of guilt, as there was evidence to the contrary.
- No corroboration: In addition to the confession, no other material evidence was ever produced linking the petitioner with the crime.
- Abuse of law: Allowing the proceeding to infinity contrary would constitute an abuse of the legal process and an injustice.
In this way, the court upheld the petition about the charges that had been preferred against the petitioner under NDPS.
OBSERVATION
As noted in the judgment, there was not enough evidence to support the NDPS on the branch petitioner including the fact that the confession was not supported by any corroborative evidence. The Evidence Bill also does not allow the use of any evidence that could be forged. As in the previous case where the accused was not defending the demand letter, even if it was impossible to recover contraband from the accused, the absence of defendant information did not provide a basis for contacting him.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
