The Madras High Court holds that mere confession of a co-accused, without independent corroboration and strict statutory compliance—especially of procedural safeguards under Section 42 NDPS Act—cannot sustain a conviction. The Court explicitly affirms established Supreme Court precedent on the unreliability of co-accused confessions alone, while underscoring the heavy burden on prosecution in grave offences. This decision is binding authority for all courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL A(MD)/351/2023 of A.Vignesh Vs The Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMD010484572023 |
| Date of Registration | 24-04-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Court | Madras High Court, Madurai Bench |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reaffirmed that conviction under the NDPS Act cannot rest solely on the confession of a co-accused without independent corroborative evidence, especially where no recovery is made from the accused in question. Absence of the accused’s signature on the recovery mahazar casts serious doubt on his presence and participation. The prosecution bears a heavy burden in grave offences, and strict compliance with procedural safeguards, particularly Section 42, is indispensable. Producing only a typed copy instead of the original written information, and inconsistencies in official evidence, vitiate the statutory presumption of the NDPS Act. Given deliberate procedural lapses and false evidence by police witnesses, a false case was found and an enquiry was directed, with compensation awarded to the acquitted appellant. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The accused was allegedly found along with others at a public place where 24 kg of ganja was recovered only from A1, not from the appellant. The confession of the co-accused was solely relied upon. Appellant’s signature was not secured on key recovery documents, and Section 42 procedural compliance was dubious. No independent witnesses were cited, and claimed previous bad antecedents of the appellant were found to be false. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Tamil Nadu and Puducherry |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and available as persuasive authority for the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be based solely on a confession of a co-accused; independent evidence is essential.
- Absence of an accused’s signature on the recovery mahazar vitiates the prosecution’s case as to presence and possession.
- Failure to strictly comply with Section 42 NDPS Act (regarding writing and communicating information) is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- Court recognizes and acts upon deliberate falsification by law enforcement, ordering compensation to the acquitted accused—rare and significant.
- Directs disciplinary enquiry into prosecuting officers who gave false evidence—a notable precedent for accountability in prosecution under NDPS Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the conviction was sustainable absent recovery from the appellant and based only on the confession of a co-accused. Citing Supreme Court precedents (Tofan Singh, Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan, Ajay Kumar Gupta), it reiterated that such confessions cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
- There was no corroborative material showing the appellant’s conscious possession or active role; the absence of the accused’s signatures on the recovery mahazar further undermined the prosecution case.
- Prosecution failed to produce the original handwritten note required under Section 42 NDPS Act; production of a typed copy, with inconsistencies in evidence from police witnesses, led to a finding that Section 42 was not complied with.
- The claim of bad antecedents by prosecution was proved false upon scrutiny of police records and admissions during trial.
- The Court concluded this was a false case, noting the troubling alliance between P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4 in presenting manipulated evidence to secure conviction. Citing the right to fair trial and prosecution obligations for honest disclosure, the Court allowed the appeal, ordered compensation for the wrongful incarceration, and directed a departmental enquiry.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- No material except confession of co-accused against the appellant.
- Appellant’s presence at the scene is doubtful since signature not obtained in recovery mahazar.
- Conviction cannot be based only on co-accused confession.
- No recovery made from appellant.
- Cited Supreme Court judgments supporting contentions.
- Claimed procedural irregularities, namely non-compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act.
Respondent (State)
- Prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) cogently deposed about appellant’s presence with other accused.
- Information received specifically identified the appellant.
- Nothing was elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve involvement of the appellant.
- Sought confirmation of conviction and sentence.
- Argued that appellant had previous bad antecedents (later disproved in Court).
Factual Background
The appellant, along with other accused, was allegedly found in possession of 24 kilograms of ganja at Melavasal, Madurai, on 26.06.2021. Recovery was made only from A1 at a public, crowded location. FIR was registered under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The only evidence against the appellant was the confession of the co-accused and the statements of police witnesses. No independent corroboration or recovery from the appellant occurred. Appellant was convicted at trial and sentenced to 10 years RI with a fine, leading to this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act: The Court analyzed the essential requirement of “conscious possession” for establishing guilt under these provisions.
- Section 42 NDPS Act: The Court stressed strict compliance—written recording and communication of information received prior to search is mandatory, especially in commercial quantity cases. Failure to produce the handwritten record or diary entry, or only submitting a typed copy, constitutes non-compliance.
- Section 54 NDPS Act: Presumption of culpable mental state arises only if prosecution establishes possession; here, such possession was unproved.
- Section 57 NDPS Act: Timely reporting of seizure and arrest was scrutinized, with inconsistencies further weakening the prosecution’s case.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Ordered joint compensation by offending police witnesses to acquitted appellant for wrongful incarceration.
- Directed the Director General of Police to conduct an independent departmental enquiry into deliberate falsification and perjury by police witnesses, to conclude within one month.
- Directed the Registry to safely preserve records until completion of enquiry.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent (on departmental action and compensation for false evidence in NDPS cases)