Custodial disclosure and merits exoneration barred criminal prosecution, leading to discharge and quashing of charges.

A custodial disclosure recorded before an interrogating officer was treated as involuntary and inadmissible, so it could not be relied on to frame charges or sustain criminal liability under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Court also applied the principle that, where departmental proceedings on the same facts end in exoneration on merits, continuation of the criminal prosecution may amount to abuse of process. On that basis, the charges were set aside, the criminal trial was held unsustainable, and the accused was discharged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disclosure statement recorded from the accused could be treated as a valid statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and used to sustain the charge. (ii) Whether the criminal trial could continue after the accused had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings on the same facts.

Issue (i): Whether the disclosure statement recorded from the accused could be treated as a valid statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and used to sustain the charge.

Analysis: The statement was recorded while the accused was in custody and before the interrogating officer, not as a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the Act. Such a statement could not be treated as admissible evidence for fastening criminal liability. The Court also treated the statement as hit by the rule against custodial confessions and held that it could not be used to frame charges for the alleged recovery.

Conclusion: The statement was not admissible for the purpose of framing charges against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal trial could continue after the accused had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings on the same facts.

Analysis: The departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution arose from the same set of facts. The accused had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings on merits, and the Court applied the principle that where the exoneration is on merits and the allegation is not sustainable, continuation of the criminal prosecution amounts to abuse of process. The Court therefore found the prosecution unsustainable in light of the departmental outcome.

Conclusion: The criminal trial could not be continued and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeded, the order framing charges was set aside, and the accused was discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: A custodial disclosure statement cannot be treated as a valid Section 67 statement to sustain charges, and where the accused is exonerated on merits in parallel departmental proceedings on the same facts, continuation of the criminal prosecution is an abuse of process.

---