The Madras High Court held that conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained solely on the confession of a co-accused and absent strict compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the Act. The Court also held prosecution witnesses liable for compensation in case of proven false evidence. This judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent, provides sector-specific guidance for NDPS offences, and is binding on subordinate courts, while setting a significant precedent for police, prosecution, and defence in narcotics cases.
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 |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents and reiterates existing legal standards |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (NDPS Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act can be based solely on confession of co-accused and without strict compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act procedural safeguards. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that mere confession by a co-accused is not sufficient for conviction under the NDPS Act, especially when no recovery is made from the appellant and his presence at the scene is not independently established. Further, strict compliance with Section 42 (recording, forwarding, and production of written information) is mandatory in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity. The absence of the accused’s signature in the recovery mahazar, lack of independent witnesses in a crowded location, absence of prior criminal antecedents, and material doubts regarding the chain of investigation vitiate the prosecution case. False evidence or procedural manipulation by prosecution witnesses attracts judicial sanction, including compensation and departmental enquiry. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court rulings on confessions under NDPS Act, mandatory compliance with Section 42, and standards for evidence in grave NDPS offences. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was accused of possession of 24 kg ganja along with others; the contraband was recovered only from the principal accused, A1. Prosecution relied on police witnesses and confession of co-accused. Appellant’s signature not found on recovery documents; no recovery from or independent evidence about appellant. Section 42 procedure not strictly complied with. No prior criminal case established against appellant. Trial court convicted the appellant; appellate court found serious lapses in prosecution and exonerated appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under Madras High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, and trial courts nationwide (in NDPS and criminal law cases) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that conviction under NDPS Act cannot rest solely on co-accused’s confession; independent evidence is required.
- Strict compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act is mandatory—non-production of original written information and procedural lapses vitiate the prosecution.
- Police officers, public prosecutors, and investigation officers giving false evidence or manipulating procedure may be held personally liable for compensation and subjected to departmental enquiry.
- Absence of the accused’s signature on recovery/mahazar documents is a major procedural gap, especially in crowded public places where independent witnesses could easily be secured.
- Criminal antecedents cannot be presumed or relied upon where not proven by record; prosecution must provide factual foundation.
- Sets precedent for compensation for accused where the prosecution is found to have fabricated or manipulated evidence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments which hold that conviction cannot be solely based on the confession of a co-accused (Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan, Ajay Kumar Gupta, Tofan Singh).
- Noted that no independent recovery or evidence established appellant’s involvement; the only “evidence” was a co-accused confession, which is legally insufficient.
- Emphasized the need for strict compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act: the requirement for the investigating officer to record, forward, and produce the written information received regarding the offence. In this case, only a typed copy of the information was produced, not the original handwritten note; the officer who supposedly received the information was not initially cited as a witness.
- The absence of the accused’s signature on crucial recovery documents (athachi/mahazar), especially given the public and crowded nature of the alleged place of offence, creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version.
- The prosecution’s assertion of prior criminal antecedents was specifically disproven by records and admission of the investigating officer.
- The Court found the conduct of prosecution witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4) to be collusive and motivated, with evidence of producing false testimony to secure conviction.
- Ordered departmental enquiry against errant officials and imposed personal costs/compensation for wrongful prosecution.
- Concluded that without concrete, independent evidence and strict procedural adherence, conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No material evidence except confession of co-accused to link appellant to crime.
- Presence at scene of offence is doubtful, as appellant’s signature absent from recovery mahazar (Ex.P.4).
- No recovery made from appellant; prosecution failed to prove conscious possession.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgments: Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan, Ajay Kumar Gupta, Tofan Singh—conviction cannot be based on confession of co-accused alone.
- Prosecution failed to establish compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act, particularly Section 42.
- Sought acquittal.
Respondent (State):
- Prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) cogently deposed about appellant’s presence.
- Cross-examination did not elicit anything to doubt appellant’s presence.
- Informant gave particulars of appellant’s identity.
- Asserted appellant’s prior bad antecedents.
- Prayed for confirmation of conviction and sentence.
Factual Background
The case revolves around an alleged seizure of 24 kg of ganja on 26.06.2021, pursuant to information received by P.W.2 (police sub-inspector) about illegal dealing near Melavasal, Madurai. Upon surveillance with team members, the police claim to have apprehended the accused, including the appellant, and recovered the contraband from A1. All accused were arrested, with the FIR registered for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. During trial, the prosecution primarily relied on police witnesses and the alleged confession of co-accused; the appellant denied involvement, and contested compliance with statutory safeguards.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act: Charges framed for possession of commercial quantity of contraband.
- Section 42 NDPS Act: The Court examined strict compliance requirements—accurate recording of information, forwarding to superior officer, and production of original information/written communication.
- Section 50 NDPS Act: Informed accused of right to be searched before a Magistrate/gazetted officer; the consent to personal search by the officer was recorded.
- Section 54 NDPS Act: Addressed presumption of guilt based on “possession”; Court held that foundational facts for possession must be independently proven before presumption operates.
- Section 57 NDPS Act: Reporting of arrest and seizure; examined for consistency with other records.
- Court found non-compliance or manipulation in compliance with the above sections, especially Section 42.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are referenced or summarized in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Direct personal liability (compensation of ₹10 lakhs) imposed on prosecution/police witnesses found to have given false evidence or manipulated the judicial process.
- Departmental enquiry ordered against P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4, to be conducted by the Director General of Police within a stipulated timeframe.
- Court directed refund of fine amount and cancellation of bail bond.
- Registry directed to preserve judicial records until the enquiry is completed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on NDPS confession and Section 42 strict compliance standards has been affirmed and rigorously enforced.