The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observing that merely arranging a job for a co-accused cannot be treated as harbouring, especially in the absence of supporting evidence beyond a confession.
Justice P. Dhanabal presided over the case titled B. Karthick vs. The Inspector of Police, and ruled that the charges framed under various sections of the NDPS Act and Indian Penal Code were not sustainable solely on the confession of a co-accused.
Read Also:- "TASMAC Challenges ED Raid in Madras High Court, Says Officers Can't Act Above the Law"
"In the absence of any other material on record to connect the accused with the crime, the confession statement of the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his implication in the crime," the judge stated.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, B. Karthick (arrayed as A7), along with six others, was involved in illegal transportation of 105 kilograms of kanja (cannabis) from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka. On November 26, 2023, the police found a vehicle registered to A2 containing the contraband. During the police action, A1, A2, and A3 escaped and were picked up by A5. Later, A3 informed Karthick about the incident.
It was alleged that Karthick then harboured A3 by helping him find a job in a firm named Solar Planet at Tirupur. Based on this, and a confession made by A3, the police charged Karthick under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 27A, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Karthick’s counsel, Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian, argued that the petitioner had no prior knowledge about the criminal act involving kanja. His only involvement was helping A3 secure employment in Tirupur. The defense contended that there was no evidence to show that Karthick knowingly harboured a criminal or was aware of A3’s involvement in the NDPS case.
"Even as per the prosecution, the petitioner only arranged a job for A3, and this alone cannot attract Section 27A of the NDPS Act," the counsel argued.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Questions Tamil Nadu Government Over Supreme Court Move in ED-TASMAC Case
He also highlighted that the investigating officer did not examine any person at the workplace in Tirupur or collect any other form of evidence to implicate the petitioner.
The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, representing the State, argued that A3 was the petitioner’s brother-in-law. He claimed Karthick knowingly helped A3 after being informed about his involvement in the kanja transportation, and therefore, the petitioner must face trial.
Justice Dhanabal rejected the State's claim, reiterating the settled position of law that the confession of a co-accused, in the absence of corroborating evidence, cannot be the sole basis to frame charges or proceed to trial.
“Except for the confession statement of A3, no other evidence was collected by the investigation agency. There is no material to show that the petitioner had any knowledge about A3’s involvement in the kanja case,” the judge observed.
The court emphasized that even the confession statement given by A3 to the police is inadmissible in evidence, referring to multiple judgments including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. These judgments firmly establish that a co-accused’s confession alone cannot be considered sufficient for conviction or even for framing charges.
“Clearly, there must be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case,” the judge noted while referring to the ruling in Hari Charan Kurmi & Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar.
The court found no credible evidence to support the claim that Karthick had harboured the co-accused knowingly. It held that in the absence of any substantial material, the petitioner should not be subjected to the ordeal of trial.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against Karthick in C.C. No.159 of 2024 pending before the Additional District Judge, Special Court for E.C. Act Cases, Pudukottai District.
“Without any materials against the petitioner, he cannot face the ordeal of trial,” concluded the court.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
Case Title: B Karthick v. The Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl. O. P.(MD)No.22599 of 2024
