The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sadiq Pasha – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2026 – 2026 INSC 1083 – OCTOBER 01, 2026 – J. B. PARDIWALA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/18903/18903_2026_5_49_74858_Judgement_01-Oct-2026.pdf
Appellant and impugned order challenged
The State filed this appeal challenging the order of the High Court which quashed the criminal proceedings pending against an absconding accused in a special narcotics case. The High Court had relied on previous apex court decisions regarding the evidentiary value of statements to quash the chargesheet drawn against him. [paras 2, 5]
Factual matrix
Following information about the transportation of contraband in a car, a police party intercepted the vehicle and found three individuals near it, one of whom immediately fled the scene. The police apprehended the remaining two individuals and recovered a commercial quantity of contraband hidden in the dashboard and trunk of the vehicle. During the ensuing investigation, the individual who escaped was identified, arrayed as an accused, and subsequently declared an absconder, leading the police to file a split chargesheet against him. [paras 4, 12]
Other courts verdicts
The trial court kept the split criminal proceedings active and pending as a special case against the absconding accused. The High Court subsequently intervened and quashed these proceedings solely because the accused was neither apprehended at the scene nor found with contraband, reasoning that the prosecution relied entirely on the co-accused’s statement. [paras 2, 5]
Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent
The State contended that the High Court improperly exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at a premature stage, ignoring that the accused was named in the initial police report and that the investigation could yield further evidence beyond mere statements. Although unrepresented in the final hearing, the respondent’s underlying position relied on the High Court’s reasoning that since he was absent during the seizure and implicated only through a co-accused’s statement—which holds no evidentiary value in a trial—there was no substantive material to justify continuing the criminal prosecution against him. [paras 3, 5, 11, 12]
Ratio Decidendi
While statements obtained from a co-accused hold no evidentiary value in a trial and cannot independently secure a conviction, such disclosures are valid investigative tools used to gather further substantive evidence. Consequently, quashing a chargesheet at an early stage solely because the initial implication arose from a co-accused’s statement is an improper exercise of judicial power, as it preempts the trial court’s role in evaluating the overall evidence during the cognizance or discharge stage. [paras 12, 13, 14]
Directions issued
The Supreme Court restored the trial court proceedings and directed the respondent to appear before the Principal District and Sessions Judge within two weeks. Upon appearance, the trial court shall release him on bail on fit terms, but if he fails to appear, the court must issue steps for his apprehension.
Important Judgments
6. Tofan Singh was considered by a three Judge Bench on a reference being made for an authoritative pronouncement on ‘Evidentiary value of a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act’. The referring Court was of the opinion that the NDPS Act being a penal statute, is in contradistinction to the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, 1944, whose dominant object is to protect the revenue of the State. The judgments rendered in the context of those Acts; as to the evidentiary value of the statements recorded in a proceeding akin to search and seizure aimed at plugging revenue loss, opined the referring Court; may not be apposite when considering the NDPS Act; a penal statute, the object of the said enactments being disparate. The referring Court sought for reconsideration of the ratio of two earlier judgments of this Court, finding otherwise.
Confession statement of accused in NDPS does not contain any evidentiary value
11. Primarily, we must notice that the facts of the cases referred to in the impugned order, were either on conviction or one on a prayer for cancellation of bail, wherein the sole incriminating circumstance, projected by the prosecuting/investigating agency was the confessional statement. The disclosure statement of the co-accused was also found to be of no evidentiary value to convict the accused or for cancellation of bail granted. Whether the same principle can be applied with respect to a pending prosecution, is the question arising herein, that too, to take the extreme step of quashing the charges.
Disclosure made by the co-accused at the spot about the identity and the name of the one who fled could be used only to gather further evidence
13. We have no doubt that the confessional statement under Section 67 or a disclosure statement under Section 53A of the NDPS Act, can have no evidentiary value in a trial and it cannot lead to a conviction. Section 53A of the NDPS Act does not enable the disclosure of the co-accused to be placed before Court, especially when he is not examined as a witness or made an approver. The disclosure made by the co-accused who were apprehended at the spot, about the identity and the name of the one who fled, is only a material which the Investigating Officer could use to gather further evidence, which alone could be the basis of a chargesheet or a conviction, in a properly instituted trial.
Conclusion
14. We find the manner in which the proceedings were quashed by the High Court to be improper. The impugned order deserves to be set aside; and we do so. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter and the respondent could take up this very same contention of no other material having been unearthed in the investigation at the time when cognizance is taken by the Special Court or if it has already been taken, by filing an appropriate application for discharge. These contentions are left open to be agitated at the appropriate stage, as desired by the respondent.
15. However, finding the impugned order quashing the criminal proceedings to be improper, we restore Special Case No.24 of 2022 arising out of Special Case No.131 of 2019 in Crime No.94 of 2018 to the files of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Court, Udupi. The respondent shall appear before the said Court within a period of two weeks from today, upon which the Court shall allow him to be released on bail on such terms and conditions it deems fit and otherwise, on failure to appear, the Trial Court shall issue steps for his apprehension for production before Court.
Resources
- Judgments Discussed:
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 – Established that a statement recorded by empowered officers under the narcotics law cannot be used as a confessional statement in a trial.
- State (by NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Another (2022) 12 SCC 633 – Determined that confessional statements lack the substantive weight required to cancel bail for an accused not found with contraband.
- Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2024) 13 SCC 734 – Overturned a conviction that was based entirely on the statements of a co-accused and the appellant without any independent corroborating evidence.
- Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan v. State of Gujarat and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 – Ruled that an accused cannot be convicted when no contraband is recovered from them and the case rests purely on a co-accused’s statement.
- Acts and Sections Involved:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
- Section 20 (b)(ii) C (Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis)
- Section 31A (Enhanced punishment for offences after previous conviction)
- Section 53 (Power to invest officers of certain departments with powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station)
- Section 53A (Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances)
- Section 67 (Power to call for information, etc.)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 25 (Confession to police officer not to be proved)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 161 (Examination of witnesses by police)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
