The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sadiq Pasha

Non-Reportable 2026 INSC 1083

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6323 of 2026)

The State of Karnataka & Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Sadiq Pasha ...Respondent(s)

ORDER Leave granted.

2. The State has filed the above appeal against the order

of the High Court which quashed the proceedings in Special

Case Crime No.24 of 2022, pending before the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, for the offence

punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii) C of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (NDPS Act). The

appellant was declared an absconder, and a split

chargesheet was drawn against him. The impugned order

quashed the criminal proceedings so pending, relying on

the decisions of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.10.05 16:47:39 IST Nadu1, State (by NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Reason:

1 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 1 of 11

Arimutta and Another2, Balwinder Singh (Binda) v.

Narcotics Control Bureau3 and Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan

v. State of Gujarat and Another4.

3. We heard Sri Aman Panwar, learned AAG appearing

on behalf of the State and none appeared for the respondent

accused, who was served through the Commissioner of

Police, who had deputed the Assistant Sub-Inspector,

Lashkar Police Station, Mysuru, to serve the notice. The

service of notice is spoken of in the communication

addressed by the Assistant Sub-Inspector to the

Commissioner of Police, Mysuru City, dated 16.04.2026,

which is produced herein.

4. On facts, the respondent is an engineering graduate,

who, after studies, was in the United States of America. The

incident occurred when he was a student and he was

arrayed as Accused No.3 in FIR No.30 of 2025, registered in

the Lashkar Police Station, Mysuru City. The contents of the

FIR indicate that on information received of transportation of

Ganja in a car, a police party was dispatched, who found

three persons standing in a parking area, near the specified

car; one of whom ran away. The other two were apprehended

2 (2022) 12 SCC 633 3 (2024) 13 SCC 734 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 Page 2 of 11

and on a search of the car, 32.615 kgs of Ganja was found in

42 bundles, hidden in the dashboard and trunk of the car.

The investigation ensued and culminated in a chargesheet,

wherein the respondent was shown as an absconder; hence

the case was split up as against the absconder and the other

accused. The respondent was the person who fled from the

spot in which the seizure was effected.

5. The respondent approached the High Court seeking

to quash the criminal case lodged against him and kept

pending as Special Case No.24 of 2022 arising out of Special

Case No.131 of 2019 in the records of the Principal District

and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Udupi. The High

Court quashed the proceedings on the sole ground of the

respondent neither having been apprehended at the spot

nor any contraband found in his possession, but arrayed

only on the confessional statement of the other co-accused,

who were apprehended on the spot. Reliance was also

placed on the decisions as noticed hereinabove. We are

afraid that the decisions have no application insofar as a

case pending for trial before the Special Court.

6. Tofan Singh1 was considered by a three Judge Bench

on a reference being made for an authoritative

pronouncement on ‘Evidentiary value of a statement under Page 3 of 11

Section 67 of the NDPS Act’. The referring Court was of the

opinion that the NDPS Act being a penal statute, is in

contradistinction to the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central

Excise Act, 1944, whose dominant object is to protect the

revenue of the State. The judgments rendered in the context

of those Acts; as to the evidentiary value of the statements

recorded in a proceeding akin to search and seizure aimed

at plugging revenue loss, opined the referring Court; may

not be apposite when considering the NDPS Act; a penal

statute, the object of the said enactments being disparate.

The referring Court sought for reconsideration of the ratio of

two earlier judgments of this Court, finding otherwise.

7. The challenge therein was on three counts; one, that

the conviction was based solely on the purported

confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the

NDPS Act; the statement having been given to an officer

deemed to be a police officer and thus, hit by Section 25 of

the Evidence Act, 1872. Then, it was argued that Section 67

of the NDPS Act does not enable recording of a confessional

statement, and at best, the statement can only be regarded

as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19735. And lastly, the statement was subsequently

5 In short ‘CrPC’ Page 4 of 11

retracted and hence, it could not be the basis of conviction

and could at best, corroborate other evidence. The three

Judge Bench by a majority found that the Officers vested

with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, are Police

Officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence

Act, 1872 and a confessional statement recorded by them

would be hit by Section 25 of the said Act. A statement

recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used

as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under

the NDPS Act. Answering the reference, the three Judge

Bench sent back the individual cases for consideration to the

Division Bench. Pertinently, it is to be noticed that therein,

the appeal was against a conviction wherein a confessional

statement was relied on for the purpose of finding guilt on

the accused.

8. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta2 was concerned with the

confessional statement which was urged by the State for the

purpose of cancellation of bail. A batch of cases were

considered, arising from two connected cases registered

under the NDPS Act. The State and the Union of India were

aggrieved with the bail granted to the accused. It was found

on perusing the impugned orders that except for the

voluntary statements of A1 and A2 in the first case and that Page 5 of 11

of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act, there was no substantial material available

with the prosecution at the time of the arrest to connect the

respondents with the allegations levelled against them of

indulging in drug trafficking. Except for one, A2, none of the

other respondents were found to be in possession of the

narcotic drug. While the bail granted to the person found in

possession was cancelled and he was directed to surrender

before the Special Judge, the confessional statements were

found to be not substantive material warranting cancelation

of the bail already granted to the other accused.

9. In Balwinder Singh (Binda)3 also, the appeal was

against a conviction, that too, a sentence of death awarded

by the Trial Court, modified by the High Court with a

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years. The death

sentence was awarded by the Trial Court for reason of a

prior conviction and thus, invoking the power under Section

31A of the NDPS Act. The incident was an interception

carried out on information. A car was detained, from which,

two persons fled and the third person got arrested. The

contraband was recovered on search of the car and a seizure

mahazar was also prepared. The seized items were also later

handed over to the Superintendent-in-charge of the godown Page 6 of 11

and the samples taken were sent for chemical examination.

The appellant Balwinder Singh was nowhere in the picture

till then. Later, as claimed by the prosecution, a newspaper

report of an arrest made in an another NDPS case, led the

Investigating Officer to Balwinder Singh, who, on a statement

recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, confessed to his

presence in the spot. The conviction of Balwinder Singh was

only based on the confessional statement of the co-accused

and the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, of

Balwinder Singh himself. In the context of no other

independent incriminating evidence having come forth

against Balwinder Singh, the conviction against him was set

aside and he was acquitted of the charge. However, the

conviction of the accused arrested on the spot was

confirmed.

10. Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan4 was again a case in

which, on information of transportation of Ganja, the Police

in plain clothes carried out surveillance at a bus stand. The

information obtained, contained the description of the

physical features of suspects and the apparel they would be

wearing. The surveillance party split into two groups and

they found two suspects answering the description, one of

whom handed over a bag to the other. The two separate Page 7 of 11

teams went in pursuit of the two, who went in opposite ways.

The man with the bag was apprehended and contraband

was seized from the bag. The other person fled and could

not be apprehended. The Police party, for reason of security

issues, moved to a nearby guesthouse to carry out the

seizure and sampling. The appellant was arrested

subsequently on the statement of the person apprehended

at the spot and he was convicted on the basis of the

statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

Finding that no contraband was recovered from the

appellant and that the conviction was merely based on the

confessional statement, the appellant was acquitted.

11. Primarily, we must notice that the facts of the cases

referred to in the impugned order, were either on conviction

or one on a prayer for cancellation of bail, wherein the sole

incriminating circumstance, projected by the

prosecuting/investigating agency was the confessional

statement. The disclosure statement of the co-accused was

also found to be of no evidentiary value to convict the

accused or for cancellation of bail granted. Whether the

same principle can be applied with respect to a pending

prosecution, is the question arising herein, that too, to take

the extreme step of quashing the charges. Page 8 of 11

12. The facts noticed from the instant case clearly

indicate that one person fled from the spot, from which, two

others were arrested and were found in conscious

possession of the contraband. In the First Information

Statement (FIS) itself, the name of the person who fled, was

recorded, presumably on the others disclosing the same.

There is neither a disclosure statement recorded from the

co-accused nor a statement recorded under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act from the respondent himself; he having

evaded arrest. The quashing of charges merely on the

ground that a confessional statement cannot be relied on in

the trial, would not be a proper exercise of the inherent

powers conferred on the High Court. The High Court has not

looked into the evidence produced in the case, especially

when the trial obviously would have been proceeded with

against the co-accused. There is also no whisper as to the

chargesheet filed in the case and the culpability found on

the 3rd accused therein, who is the respondent herein;

which in any event, would be premature at the stage of

quashing.

13. 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 Page 9 of 11

and it cannot lead to a conviction. Section 53A of the NDPS

Act does not enable the disclosure of the co-accused to be

placed before Court, especially when he is not examined as

a witness or made an approver. The disclosure made by the

co-accused who were apprehended at the spot, about the

identity and the name of the one who fled, is only a material

which the Investigating Officer could use to gather further

evidence, which alone could be the basis of a chargesheet

or a conviction, in a properly instituted trial.

14. We find the manner in which the proceedings were

quashed by the High Court to be improper. The impugned

order deserves to be set aside; and we do so. 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. These

contentions are left open to be agitated at the appropriate

stage, as desired by the respondent .

15. However, finding the impugned order quashing the

criminal proceedings to be improper, we restore Special

Case No.24 of 2022 arising out of Special Case No.131 of Page 10 of 11

2019 in Crime No.94 of 2018 to the files of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Udupi. The

respondent shall appear before the said Court within a

period of two weeks from today, upon which the Court shall

allow him to be released on bail on such terms and

conditions it deems fit and otherwise, on failure to appear,

the Trial Court shall issue steps for his apprehension for

production before Court.

16. The appeal stands allowed with the above direction.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.

.......…….……………………. J. (J. B. PARDIWALA)

....……….……………………. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 01, 2026.

Page 11 of 11