Tuesday, 6 October 2026
Contact the desk
The Legal Alpha

Legal news and analysis

National

Supreme Court Rules NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Prematurely Over Co-Accused's Section 67 Confession

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 6 October 2026 · 6 min read
Supreme Court Rules NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Prematurely Over Co-Accused's Section 67 Confession

The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court that quashed narcotics prosecution against an accused person solely because the investigating agency had relied on the disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Delivering the judgment in an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against Sadiq Pasha, a bench of the apex court held that High Courts cannot exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prematurely terminate a drug trafficking case without reviewing the full chargesheet or allowing the Special Court to evaluate the evidence at the stage of framing charges.

The Supreme Court restored the trial proceedings before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Court in Udupi, directing the accused to appear before the trial court within two weeks to seek regular bail, while preserving his liberty to seek statutory discharge before the trial judge.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Criminal Law / Narcotics Law
Sub-topic: Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC / Admissibility of Section 67 NDPS Statements

Core Legal Issue

Can a High Court invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal chargesheet against an accused at the threshold solely on the ground that the prosecution relied upon an inadmissible co-accused confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without examining whether the investigating agency has uncovered other corroborative material to sustain the charge?

The core question centers on maintaining the procedural boundary between the summary quashing powers of the High Court and the statutory authority of the Special Court to assess charges under the CrPC during charge-framing and discharge.

What Did the Court Decide?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and quashed the High Court's order, ruling that dismissing charges merely because a co-accused's statement cannot be relied upon in trial constitutes an improper exercise of Section 482 inherent powers.

The Court restored Special Case No. 24 of 2022 (arising out of Crime No. 94 of 2018) to the files of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Udupi. It directed the respondent, Sadiq Pasha, to appear before the Special Court within two weeks to apply for bail under terms deemed fit by the trial judge.

Significantly, the Supreme Court made clear that it had expressed no opinion on the factual merits of the case. The Court explicitly left it open to the respondent to raise the contention that no independent incriminating material exists by filing an appropriate application for discharge before the Special Court.

Key Legal Points

  • The Supreme Court held that quashing an NDPS prosecution under Section 482 CrPC solely because the investigating agency recorded or relied upon a co-accused's Section 67 statement is premature and legally improper.

  • The bench observed that High Courts must not short-circuit criminal proceedings without examining the overall chargesheet and evaluating the specific culpability attributed to the accused alongside other co-accused facing trial.

  • While reaffirming the settled law that a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible as a substantive confession against a co-accused under the Tofan Singh doctrine, the Court clarified that its presence does not automatically render the entire prosecution void ab initio at the threshold.

  • The proper legal avenue for an accused asserting a lack of independent evidence is to seek discharge before the Special Court at the stage of taking cognizance or framing charges, rather than pursuing premature quashing.

  • The trial court in Udupi was directed to resume the proceedings, giving the respondent two weeks to submit to jurisdiction and seek bail while leaving all legal defenses open.

Relevant Law

  • Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Power of designated officers to call for information, documents, and examine persons during inquiry.

  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

  • Sections 227 and 239 of the CrPC: Provisions governing discharge of the accused when allegations are deemed groundless upon consideration of the record.

  • Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers.

  • Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1: Landmark Constitution Bench precedent holding that statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statements in a trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner / Appellant (State of Karnataka):
Appearing for the State of Karnataka, Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar and Advocate-on-Record Sanchit Garga argued that the High Court erred fundamentally by shutting down the prosecution without reviewing the totality of the chargesheet. The State submitted that whether the prosecution possesses sufficient corroborative material, call detail records, or financial links beyond the co-accused's disclosure is a question to be evaluated by the Special Court during charge framing, making summary quashing under Section 482 premature.

Respondent / Accused (Sadiq Pasha):
The respondent contended that the entire case against him was anchored entirely on the voluntary statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh, the respondent argued that such statements carry no evidentiary weight in the eyes of the law, and allowing the prosecution to proceed in the absence of independent contraband recovery would subject him to unjustified judicial harassment.

Why Does It Matter?

This ruling establishes a vital procedural boundary for criminal litigation under special anti-drug statutes across India. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's landmark 2021 decision in Tofan Singh, High Courts frequently entertained Section 482 petitions to quash chargesheets where an accused was named in a co-accused's custodial disclosure.

By re-establishing that the inadmissibility of a confession does not equate to an automatic quashing order under Section 482, the Supreme Court has re-empowered trial courts to perform their statutory duty of scrutinizing evidence at the discharge stage. The judgment protects legitimate anti-narcotics probes from premature dismissal while preserving full statutory safeguards for defendants to argue for discharge before the Special Court.

Legal Takeaway

The Supreme Court has clarified that an NDPS prosecution cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC merely because the police relied upon a co-accused's confession under Section 67. Defendants alleging a lack of independent corroborating evidence must agitate their claims through a formal discharge application before the Special Court at the stage of framing charges.

Sources

  • Primary Source: Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sadiq Pasha (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.), Special Case No. 24 of 2022, reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1016).

  • Additional Sources: LiveLaw Supreme Court Coverage; Judgment PDF Record.

 

Related reporting