Inadmissible Section 67 Confession Is No Ground to Quash a Pending NDPS Case: Supreme Court

The State of Karnataka appealed against a High Court order quashing Special Case No. 24 of 2022, pending before the Special Court, Udupi, for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act (paras 2, 5). Police found three men near a car; one ran away, and 32.615 kg of ganja in 42 bundles was found hidden in the car (para 4). The respondent, the man who fled, was shown as an absconder and the case against him was split up (paras 2, 4). The High Court quashed it because he was neither caught at the spot nor found with contraband, and was named only on the co-accused's confession (para 5).

The decisions relied on by the High Court did not apply to a case pending trial (para 5). In Tofan Singh, a three-Judge Bench held that officers under Section 53 are police officers and a Section 67 statement cannot be used as a confession at trial; the appeal there was against a conviction resting on such a statement (paras 6-7). Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta concerned cancellation of bail (para 8), while Balwinder Singh (Binda) and Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan set aside convictions resting only on confessional statements (paras 9-10). Whether that principle justifies quashing a pending prosecution was a different question (para 11). Here the name of the man who fled was recorded in the First Information Statement, and there was neither a co-accused's disclosure statement nor a Section 67 statement from the respondent (para 12). The High Court examined neither the evidence nor the chargesheet; quashing merely because a confession cannot be relied on at trial was not a proper exercise of inherent power (para 12). A co-accused's disclosure of the identity of the man who fled is material the Investigating Officer may use to gather further evidence (para 13).