The Supreme Court has restored criminal proceedings against Sadiq Pasha in an NDPS case after finding that the Karnataka High Court prematurely quashed the prosecution. The Court clarified that although a confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 cannot be used as evidence to secure a conviction, that principle does not automatically justify quashing a pending prosecution.
Background
The case arose from an incident involving the alleged transportation of ganja in a car. According to the First Information Statement, police reached a parking area after receiving information about the vehicle. Three persons were present near the car, but one of them fled while the other two were apprehended. Police subsequently recovered 32.615 kilograms of ganja packed in 42 bundles from the dashboard and trunk of the vehicle.
The respondent was shown as an absconder in the chargesheet and the case against him was split from the proceedings involving the other accused. He approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
The High Court accepted the argument that he had neither been apprehended at the spot nor found in possession of the contraband and that he had been implicated on the basis of statements attributed to co-accused persons. It consequently quashed the proceedings.
A Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the High Court, including Tofan Singh, Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, Balwinder Singh (Binda) and Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan. The Court noted that those decisions concerned convictions or cancellation of bail where the prosecution's case substantially depended upon confessional statements.
The Bench made an important distinction between the evidentiary value of such statements at trial and the question of whether a prosecution should be terminated before the evidence is examined.
"We have no doubt that the confessional statement under Section 67 or a disclosure statement under Section 53A of the NDPS Act, can have no evidentiary value in a trial and it cannot lead to a conviction."
The Court further observed that the information provided by the co-accused about the identity of the person who fled could be used by the investigating officer to gather further evidence. Whether sufficient material ultimately exists against the respondent was therefore not a matter that could be conclusively decided merely at the stage of quashing.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had improperly quashed the proceedings and set aside its order. However, the Bench expressly clarified that it had made no finding on the merits of the case.
"We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter and the respondent could take up this very same contention of no other material having been unearthed in the investigation at the time when cognizance is taken by the Special Court or if it has already been taken, by filing an appropriate application for discharge."
The Supreme Court restored Special Case No. 24 of 2022 to the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Udupi. It directed the respondent to appear before the Court within two weeks, following which he would be released on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
