Introduction

The present commentary analyzes the Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (WP No. 26835 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 9497 of 2024). The Judgment, delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar on December 3, 2024, addresses the issue of quashing criminal proceedings against two individuals (the Petitioners — accused Nos. 2 and 4), who were charged under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The central dispute revolved around allegations that the Petitioners organized parties where narcotics were distributed and consumed. However, the primary evidence against them pertained to statements purportedly made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by co-accused. This Judgment provides clarity on the legal threshold required for continuing prosecution when the prosecution's case relies heavily on uncorroborated voluntary statements.

The parties involved were:

• Petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 4): Including Ms. Ragini Dwivedi (@ Gini @ Rags), a film actress, and Mr. Prashant Ranka. They sought quashing of criminal charges related to alleged narcotics distribution and consumption.
• Respondents: The State of Karnataka (through the Cottonpet Police Station) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Narcotics Squad.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court quashed the proceedings against the Petitioners on the ground that there was a lack of substantive evidence beyond the voluntary statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Court observed that these statements, without corroborative evidence such as documentary proof or eyewitness testimony, could not serve as the sole basis for sustaining the charges.

In essence, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings based only on unsubstantiated confessions or voluntary statements would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Nevertheless, the Court clarified that if, at a later stage, new evidence emerges that can connect the Petitioners to the alleged offenses, authorities would still be at liberty to prosecute them in accordance with law.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

A key precedent cited during the proceedings was Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1. In Tofan Singh, the Supreme Court examined the scope and nature of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and held that such statements, when they amount to a confession, cannot by themselves be considered conclusive for conviction unless independently corroborated.

The High Court drew attention to the principle that a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act ("examination" of a person to gather information) must be distinguished from a formal statement or confession recorded under other procedural provisions of criminal law. If such “voluntary statements” are not supported by any independent or reliable evidence, they are insufficient to prove guilt.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning largely stemmed from the need for fair procedure and the constitutional safeguarding of individual rights. A prosecutable case under the NDPS Act demands strict compliance with procedural requirements due to the severity of punishments involved. Where the only material implicating the accused is a statement provided by another co-accused, there must be additional substantive evidence linking the accused to narcotics distribution or consumption.

The Judgment emphasizes that mere allegations of organizing parties or vague references to drug consumption do not fulfill the evidentiary threshold. Evidence such as seized contraband, transaction records, or reliable witness testimony is critical to substantiate serious criminal charges. In this matter, no such independent proof was produced by the prosecution. Thus, the High Court found that allowing proceedings to continue would violate the principles of fairness and reasonableness.

3. Impact

The Judgment will likely have significant influence on future NDPS cases, particularly those where the prosecution’s evidence hinges on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Trial courts must now be more vigilant in scrutinizing the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, especially when dealing with confessions by co-accused. Furthermore, investigating officers may be prompted to ensure thorough collection of additional proof (such as technical or forensic evidence) before filing a charge sheet.

Practitioners in the field of criminal law can interpret this decision as reiterating the principle that procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards must remain robust, even in cases involving drug-related offenses, which carry high social stigma and severe penalties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 67 of the NDPS Act: This provision authorizes certain officers to examine any person they believe may be acquainted with the facts of a case involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. While this allows officers to record voluntary statements, the Supreme Court has clarified that these statements alone cannot be used as the sole basis for conviction unless they are corroborated by other reliable evidence.

Confession vs. Voluntary Statement: A confession is a formal acknowledgment of guilt, which must satisfy strict legal requirements. A voluntary statement under Section 67 may or may not be a confession—it often amounts to information gathering rather than a conclusive admission of guilt. Courts require corroboration of such statements to safeguard against coerced or unverified accusations.

High Threshold of Proof in NDPS Cases: NDPS prosecutions involve stringent requirements and severe penalties. Consequently, courts demand higher evidentiary thresholds to avoid unjust convictions, emphasizing procedural fairness and the protection of individual rights.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA underscores the necessity for corroborative evidence in sustaining charges under the NDPS Act. It clarifies that relying solely on voluntary statements or confessions recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is insufficient to frame or continue criminal proceedings. In doing so, the Court reaffirms fundamental principles of due process and highlights the importance of reliable, corroborative evidence in establishing criminal culpability.

As a result, the proceedings against the Petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 4, were quashed. However, the Judgment does not grant them immunity from possible future prosecution if new, credible evidence emerges. For now, the High Court has set a clear precedent that the NDPS Act’s stringent provisions must be balanced by procedural safeguards and adherence to traditional evidentiary requirements. This ensures fairness to the accused and maintains the integrity of the criminal justice system.