Calcutta High Court Quashes NDPS Case Based Solely On Inadmissible S.67 Statements; Says 14-Year Delay Violates Article 21

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the NDPS proceedings against a petitioner who was implicated five years after a 2012 Charas seizure, holding that the prosecution sought to proceed solely on the strength of inadmissible Section 67 NDPS Act statements. Justice Uday Kumar noted at the outset that after Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, confessions recorded by investigating officers under Section 67 have no evidentiary value and cannot form the foundation of prosecution. Once these statements were excluded from consideration, the case, the Court said, was left without “a single legally admissible material” connecting the petitioner to the alleged narcotics transaction.The Bench emphasised that there was no physical recovery from the petitioner, no electronic evidence such as call detail records, no financial trail, and no independent witness testimony to establish any link between him and the seized contraband. The only person who could have provided a connecting thread—the alleged intermediary—had passed away during the pendency of proceedings, creating what the Court described as an “irreparable evidentiary void.” In such circumstances, the prosecution's theory, unsupported by any contemporaneous material, could not be sustained.The Court analysed the timeline of events and expressed serious concern that the petitioner had been brought into the case only in 2017, five years after the original seizure, and that the matter had remained pending for fourteen years. Stressing that delay by itself can violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench observed that prolonged criminal proceedings without progress inflict “undue oppression” on an accused, particularly when the material against him is weak or non-existent. The Court held that the delay was entirely attributable to the prosecution and that the petitioner should not be made to suffer the consequences of investigative inefficiency.The Bench underscored that NDPS cases demand strict adherence to evidentiary standards because of the severity of punishments and legislative presumptions. When neither possession, nor conscious involvement, nor any act of conspiracy is proved, a prosecution cannot be allowed to continue on speculative or inferential grounds. The Court remarked that to subject the petitioner to a full-fledged trial in the absence of admissible evidence would amount to a “miscarriage of justice” and an “abuse of the process of law.”In conclusion, the Court held that the very foundation of the prosecution had collapsed. With no recovery, no corroboration, no surviving link witness, and only inadmissible Section 67 confessions supporting the case, the continuation of the proceedings was constitutionally impermissible. The Court therefore quashed the NDPS case in its entirety and discharged the petitioner, restoring his fundamental rights under Article 21.Case: RAMLAL -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.Case No: CRR 3455 OF 2017Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Quashes NDPS Case Based Solely On Inadmissible S.67 Statements; Says 14-Year Delay Violates Article 21

Srinjoy Das

Tags