The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi  in a case under the NDPS Act set aside the charges framed against the accused after noting that the case was based on statements by other accused given to officers under Section 67, which are inadmissible in evidence. (Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal and Another versus Union of India)

The bench noted that the Supreme Court's verdict in last year's case Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu had declared that confessions made to NDPS officers are inadmissible in evidence.

Facts of the case

The bench was dealing with an appeal challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which reversed the discharge given to the accused by the trial court under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act. Before the High Court also, the accused had raised the contention that except the Section 67 statements, there was no other evidence against them. However, the High Court observed that once there was some material implicating the accused, the trial court was not justified in discharging them.

The accused challenging the High Court's order, then approached the Supreme Court. Allowing their appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in relying on the Section 67 statements in view of the verdict in the Tofan Singh case.

Courts Observation and Judgment

The bench noted, "The High Court was not correct in relying on the statements made by other accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, in light of the judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1".

The Supreme Court observed that the factual position was that no narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances were recovered from the premises of the two appellants.

As per the prosecution, 4 kilograms of Acetic Anhydride (Controlled Substance) was allegedly found from the premises of the appellants located at Gyan Scientific Agency, Varanasi.

The bench allowing the appeal remarked, "While not interfering with the order directing framing of charges under Section 9-A and 25, direction in the impugned order to frame charges against the two appellants namely, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal and Rajiv Sethi under Sections 27-A and 29-A of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained and is set aside.  The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms."

Read Order @Latestlaws.com 

Picture Source :

 
Anshu