Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an NDPS case against a man accused of supplying 2,700 tramadol tablets to three men caught with the drugs on a motorcycle in Haryana’s Sirsa district in January 2021. The court held that the prosecution’s case against him rested entirely on a statement made to the police by a co-accused who subsequently died, and which could not be admitted as evidence at trial.
The case dates back to 12 January, 2021, when a Haryana Police patrol team caught three men travelling on a motorcycle on Gadrana road in Kalanwali, Sirsa. The police recovered a bag containing 270 strips of Tridol-100 tablets, a total of 2,700 tablets containing tramadol hydrochloride. None of the men had the required permit to possess or carry the tablets.
The three men allegedly told the police that they had purchased the tablets earlier that day from Harpreet Singh, son of Nachhatar Singh. An FIR was consequently registered against all four under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
However, the petitioner, Harpreet Singh, was not among those travelling on the motorcycle, and no contraband was recovered from him.
Co-accused’s statement formed the basis of allegation
Of the three men apprehended, two were juveniles and were dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa. The third, also named Harpreet Singh but son of Manga Singh, allegedly made a statement in police custody that the three had purchased the tablets from the petitioner for Rs 27,000 on credit. He also disclosed the location where the alleged transaction had taken place.
The petitioner joined the investigation on 10 July, 2021, after obtaining anticipatory bail. According to the police, he disclosed that he had procured the tablets in December 2020 from a friend, Rajender, a resident of Talwandi Sabo, for Rs 20,000 and subsequently sold them for Rs 27,000. The police also claimed to have recovered Rs 1,500 from him. However, Rajender could never be traced.
Meanwhile, the co-accused, Harpreet Singh, son of Manga Singh, died while the proceedings were on. On 21 December, 2023, the Fast Track Special Court, Sirsa, ordered that proceedings against him be abated.
A charge was framed against the petitioner on 23 January, 2024. After five of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined, he approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Deceased co-accused’s confession can’t be used as evidence
Advocate P.K. Ganga, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the entire case against his client rested on the police statement of the deceased co-accused. Since the statement was made in police custody, it was inadmissible in evidence.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petitioner had been named in the FIR, had himself made a disclosure statement, and that the recovered quantity of tramadol was commercial.
Justice Batra, however, held that the statement of the deceased co-accused could not be used to establish the petitioner’s guilt.
The court referred to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibit proof of a confession made to a police officer and a confession made while in police custody, respectively, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.
The court examined Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which permits a court to take into consideration the confession of one accused against another when they are being jointly tried for the same offence and the confession implicates both the maker and the co-accused.
It held that the provision could not be invoked in the present case. Following the death of the co-accused and the abatement of proceedings against him, there was no joint trial in which his confession could be considered.
The court also rejected the possibility of admitting the statement under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, which deals with statements made by persons who are dead or cannot be found in certain circumstances. It noted that Section 162(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) saves only statements falling within the relevant category under Section 32. It does not override the prohibition under Section 25 against using a confession made to the police.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling in Suresh Budharmal Kalani, in which the confession of a discharged accused was held inadmissible against a co-accused, even at the stage of framing charges.
It further referred to the Supreme Court judgements in Haricharan Kurmi and Surinder Kumar Khanna, which establish that even where Section 30 applies, a co-accused’s confession is not substantive evidence. It can only lend assurance to other evidence available against the accused.
In the present case, the court found that there was no independent evidence to corroborate the deceased co-accused’s statement.
Petitioner’s disclosure statement offered no fresh evidence
The court also found no evidentiary value in the petitioner’s own disclosure statement.
Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it observed that only the portion of a statement that distinctly relates to a fact discovered in consequence of the information received from an accused can be proved.
The court noted that the deceased co-accused had already disclosed the location of the alleged transaction on 12 January, 2021. The petitioner pointed out the same place nearly six months later, and this did not lead to the discovery of any new fact.
The recovery of Rs 1,500 from the petitioner was also insufficient to connect him with the alleged sale. The court observed that the amount was small and there was nothing to establish its link with the transaction. Moreover, the co-accused had claimed that the tablets were purchased on credit.
The court also rejected the State’s reliance on the admissions made by the two juveniles before the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner was not named in the Board’s order, and the prosecution had not cited either juvenile as a witness.
The High Court clarified that the fact that the case had reached the stage of recording prosecution evidence did not prevent it from exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
It said it was not undertaking an assessment of the evidence or deciding the petitioner’s innocence. Rather, the question was whether the only material relied upon by the prosecution against him could legally be proved during trial. Since the central piece of evidence was inadmissible, continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose.
The court also observed that the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband from the other accused could not automatically make the petitioner liable for its possession.
It clarified that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, had no bearing on the question of whether admissible evidence existed against the petitioner.
The State had also referred to an earlier NDPS case against him. The court noted that he had been acquitted in that case and held that the acquittal could not be used against him.
The petitioner had additionally submitted that his wife had been working in Canada since January 17, 2025, and that the pending criminal proceedings had prevented him from joining her. The court made it clear that this was not a consideration underlying its decision.
FIR & subsequent proceedings quashed
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed FIR No. 0007 dated January 12, 2021, registered at Kalanwali police station under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, along with the charge framed against the petitioner on January 23, 2024, and all consequential proceedings.
The court also ordered the discharge of his bail and surety bonds.
(Edited by Anupama Yadav)