Karnataka High Court
Sri. Arnav Ishwar Kapsi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17520
CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4282 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI. ARNAV ISHWAR KAPSI,
S/O ISHWAR KEMPANNA KAPSI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT NO.76, 6TH MAIN, FURTHER EXTENSION,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 086.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KAMATH M R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SADASHIVANAGAR PS,
REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA 2. BASAVARAJU J
Location: High AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka S/O UNKNOWN, ASI-10,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
KARNATAKA 560 012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V.ANOOP KUMAR ADV FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE FIR DATED 01.09.2024 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
SADASHIVANGAR P.S. BENGALURU IN CR.NO.224/2024
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17520
CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025
PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.09.2024 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 20 (b)(ii)(A) OF THE NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.C.M.M COURT NRUPATUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is before this Court seeking relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that on 01.09.2024, while the complainant and his staff were patrolling to check incidents of drunk driving, they intercepted a vehicle driven by accused No.1. Upon inspection, it was found that accused No.1 was in possession of 25 grams of cannabis. The allegation against accused No.2 is that he fled from the scene when the vehicle was intercepted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The sole allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that he escaped from the scene to avoid arrest when the vehicle was intercepted by the complainant and his staff.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:17520 CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025
5. It is noted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of the confession statement of accused No.1, who allegedly stated that accused No.2 was also travelling in the car at the time of the incident.
6. In the case of Toofan Singh (supra), the Apex Court with reference to Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and its admissibility in evidence ruled as follows:
Para "66. This becomes even clearer when Section 52(3) of the NDPS Act is read. Under Section 52(3), every person arrested and article seized under Sections 41 to 44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay either to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, who must then proceed to "investigate" the case given to him, or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, which officer then "investigates" the case in order to find out whether an offence has been committed under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that Section 67 is at an antecedent stage to the "investigation", which occurs after the officer concerned under Section 42 has "reason to believe", upon information gathered in an enquiry made in that behalf, that an offence has been committed.
Para 67. Equally, when we come to Section 67(c) of the NDPS Act, the expression used is "examine" any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The "examination" of such person is again only for the purpose of gathering information so as to satisfy himself that there is "reason to believe" that an offence has been committed. This can, by no stretch of imagination, be equated to a "statement" under -4- NC: 2025:KHC:17520 CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025 Section 161 CrPC, as is argued by Shri Lekhi, relying upon Sahoo v. State of U.P. [Sahoo v. State of U.P., (1965) 3 SCR 86 : AIR 1966 SC 40 : 1966 Cri LJ 68] (at p. 88), which would include the making of a confession, being a sub-species of "statement".
Para 68. The consequence of accepting Shri Lekhi's argument flies in the face of the fundamental rights contained in Articles 20(3) and 21, as well as the scheme of the NDPS Act, together with the safeguards that have been set out by us hereinabove. First and foremost, even according to Shri Lekhi, a police officer, properly so called, may be authorised to call for information, etc. under Section 67, as he is an officer referred to in Section 42(1). Yet, while "investigating" an offence under the NDPS Act i.e. subsequent to the collection of information, etc. under Section 67, the same police officer will be bound by Sections 160-164 CrPC, together with all the safeguards mentioned therein
-- firstly, that the person examined shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him, other than questions which would tend to incriminate him; secondly, the police officer is to reduce this statement into writing and maintain a separate and true record of this statement; thirdly, the statement made may be recorded by audio- video electronic means to ensure its genuineness; and fourthly, a statement made by a woman can only be made to a woman police officer or any woman officer. Even after all these safeguards are met, no such statement can be used at any inquiry or trial, except for the purpose of contradicting such a witness in cross-examination.
Para 158. We answer the reference by stating:
Para 158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any -5- NC: 2025:KHC:17520 CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025 confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
Para 158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act."
7. What is apparent from the ratio enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Toofan Singh (supra) is summarized as follows:
i) The statement recorded under Section 67 is antecedent stage to the investigation which occurs after the concerned officer under Section 42 has "reason to believe", upon information gathered in an enquiry made in that behalf.
ii) The purpose of recording statements under Section 67 is to gather information to satisfy that there is reason to believe that the offence has been committed.
iii) The officers invested with power under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:17520 CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025
iv) The statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
In light of the aforementioned principles of law established by the Apex Court, the primary issue needs to be addressed.
8. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, there was no recovery of Cannabis from the petitioner, and there is no substantial evidence that the petitioner was traveling with accused No.1 at the time of incident. Therefore, the statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of the offence under the NDPS Act. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. The crime was registered on 01.09.2024, and the petitioner/accused No.2 was apprehended on the same day. As of today, the investigating officer has not completed the investigation, and there is no incriminating material has been found against the petitioner. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC:17520 CRL.P No. 4282 of 2025 ii. The impugned First Information Report in Crime No.0224/2024 registered by the Sadashivnagar, Police Station, Bangalore insofar it relates to accused No.2 is hereby quashed.
iii. In the event the investigating officer comes across any substantial evidence, liberty is reserved to file an report in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89