Counsel relied on thefOgrunt of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Surinder - Kumar Khanna v. tntelligence Officer, Directorate af Revenue lntelligencet wherein, it was held a

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in S.C.NDPS.No. 308 of 2024 on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Senior Advocate Rep. Sri T S Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following Order : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETIT ION No .1794 0f 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of (for Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS,) short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused No.B to quash the proceedings against him in SC NDpS.No.30g of 2024 on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad registered as FIR No.165 of 2024 on the file,of P.S.Karkhana. -l-he offence alleged against the petitioner_accused No.8 is under Section 27 of the NDpS Act, 1985 (for short ,Act,).

02. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2024, on receiving credible information, the Sub_lnspector of police, p.S. Karkhana, went to the said prace and found accused Nos.6 and 7 under the influence of psychotropic substanie and were unable to stand properly. Basing on the confession statement of accused Nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner herein is the consumer, he was arrayed as accused No.g in the crime and a case in Crime No.'t65 of 2024 was registered against the accused. After compretion of investigation, charge sheet was fired and the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance and numbered the case as S.C. NDPS No.308 of 2024. i l t I I I 2 Reddy, learned

03. Heard Sri T.pradyumna Kumar Senior counsel representing Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.B and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. "o_"".u.61,

04. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner/accused No.8 is not present at the scene of offence and nothing was recovered from his possession, merely basing on the confession of h" was falsely implicated in the case. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he is a consumer, however, medical test was conducted on him to prove that he is a habitual consumer of any narcotic substance. The remand report and FIR do not disclose any incriminating material to proceed against the petitioner and the only witnesses in the present case are the Police officiars and the panch witnesses and there is no incriminating materiar seized from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is pursuing his final year Law Degree in Symbiosis Law school, Hyderabad and his entire career wilr be spoiled, if the proceedings against him are continued.

05. ln support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on thefOgrunt of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Surinder \ - Kumar Khanna v. tntelligence Officer, Directorate af Revenue lntelligencet , wherein, it was held as: "6. For the present purposes, we will proceed on the footing that the statements of co-accused were recorded under and tn terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. As regards such statements, a Bench )f two Judges of this Court after referring to and relying upon the earlier judgments, observed in kanhaiyalal v- Union of lndia as under : (SCC p.682, Para 45) "45. Cc,nsiclering the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and thc) view expressed by this Court in Rai Kumar Karwal v. union of lndia2 with which we agree, that an officer vested with the pollers of an officer in charge of a police station under Sectrb, 53 of the above Act is not a "police officef' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not the sarne as a statement made under Section 161 of the Code, unless made under threat or coercion. /l ls lhls vital difference,' which allows a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to t)e used as a confesslon against the person making it and excludt:s it from the operation of Seclions 24 to 27 of the Eviden,:e Act."

7. Later, another Bench of two Judges of this Court in Tofan Singh v. Slafe of 7.N.3 was of the view that the matter requireC reconsideration and therefore, directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench. lt was observed in Tofan Singh ,as under: (SCC pp. 57-58, paras 40'42) "40. ln our view the aforesaid dlscussion necessllales a reJook inta the ratio of Kanhaiyalal v. Union of lndia4 . lt is more :;o when this Coufi has already doubted the dicta in Kanhaiyalal case in Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. lnspector, Custorns 5 wherein after noticing both Kanhaiyalal as wel/ as Noor Aga v. Sfate of Punjab 6, this Couri obseNed thus: (Nirma; Singh Pehlwan case, SCGp. 302, para 15)

15. We also see that the Division Bench in Kanhaiyalal case had not examined the principles and the concepts underl)'ing Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 vls-a-vls Section 108 of the Customs Act and the powers of a Cusloms Officer who could investigate and bring for trial an accused in a narcoti.j matter. The said case relied exclusively on the ' i2018) 8 Supreme court Cas;s 271 '(rggo) z scc qog: 1990 scc (cri) 330 '(2013) 16 SCC 31: (2014) 6 SCC (cri) 196 ] {zooe) l scc ooa, (2008) 2 scc (cri) 474 . t2011) 12 SCC 298 (201 2) 1 SCC (Cri) 555 " (2008) r6 SCC 417 (2o1A) 3 SCC (Cri) 748 4 judgment in Raj Kumar Karwal case. The latest judgment in point of time is Noor Aga case which has deatt u"ry utZborut"ty with this matter. We thus feel it would be proper for us to follow the ratio of the judgment in Noor Aga case particutarty as the provisions of Section 50 of the Act which are mandatory have also not been comptied with. 41 . For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the issue as to whether the officer investigating the matter uncler the NDpS Act woutd qualify as police officer or not. 42. ln this context, the other related issue vtz. whether the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 6l of the Act can be treatecl as coniessional statement or not, even if the officer is not treated as police officer also neecls to be referred to the larger Bench, inasmuch as it is intermixed with a facet of the ,rst lssre as to whether such a statement is to be treated as statement under Section\ 161 of the Code or it paftakes the character of statement under Section 164 of the Code.',

8. Thus, lhe rssae whether statement recorded under Section 67 of the ND?S Act can be construed as a confessional statement even if the officer who recorded such statement was not to be treated as a police officer, has now been referred to a larger Bench. 9. Even if we are to proceed on the premise that such statement under Section 67 of the NDzS Act may amount to confession, in our view, ceftain additional features must be established before such a confessional statement could be relied upon against a co-accused. lt is notewofthy that untike Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activitiis Act, 19877 which specifically makes confession of a co_accused admissible against other accused in certain eventualities; there is no such similar or identical provision in the ND1S Act making such confession admissible against a co_accused. The matter, therefore, has to be seen in the light of the law taid down by this Court as regards general application of a confession of co_ accused as against other accused. 'a

13. ln the present case rl r's accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of co_accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appeltant in the crime in question. We are thus teft with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co_accused as slaled above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this court, such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itsetf be taken 7 Similarly: Section 18 of lhe Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 5 as a subslanllve piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court.

14. ln the absence of any substantive evidence it would b<> inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely cn the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. We therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. The appellant shall be released fofthwrth unless f,/s custody is required in connection with any other offence.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana8, wherein, it was held as: '12. lt is fairly welt settted, to prove the charge of conspiracy, '" within th'e ambit of Section 120-8, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the pafties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to estabrsh conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegat act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of lPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of ctiminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co- accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, ls not safe to convict the accused. ln the case of lndra Dalal v. Stafe of Haryana s, this Court has considered the conviction based only on confessional statement and recovery of vehicle used in lhe crime. ln the said case, while setting aside the convictiott, this Coutt has held in paragraphs 16 and 17 as under: .'16. The philosophy behind the aforesaid provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that confessrons are extofted by the police officers by practicing oppression and toiure or even inducement and, therefore, they are unwofthy of any credence. The pro\, ision absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer. This provision applies even lo those confessions which are made to a u 202t scc ontine sc 1 184 n lzot s; r r scc ar I \ l 6 {r!*i{rw,*,*

17. The wot ae rine a uo*euei,;: E rrf? l,l"Ji:::";"":::, n owh e re b e e n : :: n i n s. a n a e x p r a i n e i i i ai," t o t h e d i c t i o n a ry L"u"?d ," *"' iri,r"trta,r,^rncriminating slatements by the c,omm.ission .i io""iiii" "111,f"",,:1 the inrerence of the i, i,,, n,* ;i:it, r n,: j fTl# l;fi ii zo ot the evidence Act mai:!".i",i?:*" o, "onctusirf, Se"rio, !"""i11* . ^|i,'i tr#tr#{tr;##Hffi xxn*tuXXW ;;:":;;:::,"*i;f z:r;!z:xii:::r::;;,,yx"il; e;i;yy;;;ffiiiif;:iy_j

7. Learned Senior Counsel Hon'ble Apex Court in Batwinde Bureaulo, wherein, it was held as: also relied on a decision of r Singh v. Narcotics Control has been dectared "26. Now that it tn Tofan Singh,s ca (supra) that the ase of Kanha tyalal (supra) and Raj Kumar Katwat (supra) did not state the coffect legal position and they the entire case set up by the judgments in the c stand overruled. e SC 12 i3 'o zozs scc orlin -----==-: ,/ l prosecution against Balwinder Singh, collapses like a House of cards. lt is not in dispute that Balwinder Singh was not apprehended by the NCB officials from the spot where the naka was laid and that Satnam Singh alone was apprehended in the lndica car The version of the prosecution is that after Satnam Singh was arrested, his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the A'DPS Act wherein he ascribed a specific role to the co-accused Balwinder Singh and the Sarpanch. The NCB officers claimed that they were on the lookout for both of them since they had managed to run away from the spot. While Sarpanch r'ould not be apprehended, the NCB officers learnt from repoft:: in the newspaper that Balwinder had been arrested by the Amr,tsar Police in an NDPS case and was lodged in the Centrat Jail Amritsar. Permission was taken from the concented Court to tat<e Balwinder Singh into custody in the instant case and he was arrested. A notice was served on him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and his statement was recorded. Treating his statement as a confessiona I statement, Balwinder Singh was arrested. 27. Once the confessional statement of the co-accused, Satnam Singh recorded by the NCB officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Ac| who had attributed a role to Balwinder Singh and the subsequently recorded statement of Balwinder Singh himself under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are reiected in the light of the taw laid down in Tofan Singh (supra), there is no other independent incriminating evidence that has been brought to the fore by the orosecution for convicting Balwinder Singh under the NDPS Act On ignoring the said confessional sfalemenfs recorded before the officers of the NCB in the course of the investigatio'1, the vital link between Balwinder Singh and the offence for which he has been charged snaps conclusively and his convictiL.tn order cannot be.sustained." B. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for quashing the proceedings stating that the petitioner is a consumer and he is addicted to consume narcotic drugs. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petrtioner can only be known after conducting full- fledged trial, hence. he prayed to dismiss the petition. l I h I t 8

9. ln the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh y. Sfafe of Tamil Nadull , it was held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act, 1985, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985.

10. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.B is that he is a consumer. But, he was not present at the scene of offence and nothing was recovered from his possession. ea a""n ,ro,n the averments of the charge sheet, during the course of investigation, the police have not conducted any medical test on the petitioner to show that he consumed any narcotic substance or he is a habitual consumer of any narcotic substance. Furthermore, the petitioner was arrayed as accused the case basing on the confession statement of co_accused, which is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh,s case. Except the confessional statement of co-accused, there is no material to show that he has purchased the narcotic substance or consumed .in " 1zozt1 t scc t 9

11. ln view of the above discussion and in view of the settled principle of law in the aforesaid juclgments, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.B amounts to abuse of process of raw, hence, the same are riabre to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings iagainst the petitioner_accused No.g in S.C.NDPS.No .3r)B of 2024 on the file of learned ll Additional lMetropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, hereby quashed ar€ As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 0 ON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt Justice Juwadi Sridevi (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusal) To, 'l . The ll Additiona Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad 3. 11 LRCopies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary, l\dvocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

6. The Station House Officer, Karkhana PS, Hyderabad District 7- Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OU'l-]

8. One CC to Sri T S Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies I I I HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 010212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1794 of 2025 ?o('- '( HE s r.q 14: .) i) [ 3 IlA!. 2025 6 llorr r_r.l tr C ALLOWING THE CRLP i I I