Judge victoriya gowri This Court finds: (a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession; (b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise; (c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial; (d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19064 of 2025
P.Surya
… Petitioner/ Accused No.10 Vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.38/2025.
…. Respondent / Complainant
2. Parameswari
…. Respondent / Defacto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.311 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional/Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr G.Karuppasamy pandiyan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash prosecution in a case arising under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The petitioner seeks quashment principally on the premise that the prosecution against him rests solely upon the confession of a co-accused and therefore falls within the parameters warranting interference under the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 and subsequent authorities.
3. The State, however, resists the petition contending that this is not a case of implication solely by confessional material but one involving interception at the scene, seizure, conscious possession

1 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
and matters which can only be tested in trial. In that backdrop, this Court proceeds to examine the rival contentions.
Case of the prosecution:
4. The prosecution case, as borne out from the final report, is that the present case arises out of an alleged chain of illicit trafficking involving eleven accused persons concerning transportation and sale of ganja. According to the prosecution, A4 allegedly entrusted Rs.35,000/- to A3 for procurement of ganja for resale and A3 in turn requested the petitioner and A9 to contact A2 for purchase of contraband by paying Rs.30,000/-.It is alleged that acting on such arrangement, the petitioner along with A9 travelled in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-58-CY-4965 and procured 2 kilograms of ganja from A2.
5. On prior information, the respondent police allegedly conducted a raid on 19.01.2025 at about 17.20 hours and
intercepted the petitioner and A9, resulting in arrest and seizure. The contraband, according to the prosecution, was recovered from
A9 and the petitioner’s involvement also stands reflected in the occurrence, seizure mahazar, arrest records and accompanying materials. Upon completion of investigation, final report came to be laid for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, taken cognizance in C.C.No.311 of 2025.
Grounds for quash:
6. The petitioner seeks quashment on the principal grounds:
(i) that prosecution against him rests solely on co-accused confession;
(ii) that no independent incriminating material links him to conscious possession;
(iii) that in light of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu Section 67 confessional statements cannot sustain prosecution;
(iv) that ingredients of Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29 NDPS
Act are absent; and
(v) continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process.
Submissions on either side:
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution is fundamentally confession-centric.
8. Heavy reliance was placed upon Tofan Singh v. State of
Tamil Nadu , wherein the Constitution Bench held:
“Officers invested with powers under Section 53 NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”
9. Further held that confessional statements under Section 67 cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Reliance was also placed upon Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat , , wherein the Supreme Court held that Confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and can at best lend assurance to other evidence.
10. Reliance was further placed on Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu5, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in the absence of material other than co-accused confession, prosecution cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also relied on Noor Aga v. State of Punjab , to contend that presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 arise only upon foundational facts being first proved.
Reliance was further placed on Ezhilarasan v. State , and B.Karthick v. Inspector of Police . On such basis, it was urged that no prima facie case survives.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the entire edifice of the petitioner’s argument proceeds on a false assumption that the case rests only on confession. According to the prosecution, this is a direct interception and seizure case and not a case of mere later implication through confessional statements. It was argued that the petitioner was allegedly apprehended at the spot along with A9, that seizure mahazar contains material indicating his presence and participation, and CCTV stills prima facie support the prosecution version.
12. Reliance was placed on Madan Lal v. State of Himachal
Pradesh , The following passage from Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh was strongly relied upon:
“Once possession is established the person who claims it was not conscious possession has to establish it…” Sections 35 and 54 of the Act recognize such presumption.
13. It was contended that issues of conscious possession, constructive possession, culpable mental state and conspiracy are matters for trial.
Points for consideration:
14. The following questions arise:
i. Whether prosecution against petitioner rests solely on inadmissible confessional material?
ii. Whether ingredients of offences alleged are prima facie absent?
iii. Whether the case falls within parameters warranting quash under Section 528 BNSS?
Analysis:
15. It is trite that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , the Hon’ble Supreme Court carved out exceptional categories where quashment may lie, but equally cautioned against stifling legitimate prosecution. At the threshold stage, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini-
trial.
16. Section 20(b)(ii)(B) concerns possession involving intermediate quantity. The petitioner would contend absence of conscious possession. However, unlike cases where accused is implicated only through remote confessional linkage, here the prosecution asserts interception of petitioner at the scene along with A9. Whether such possession was conscious, joint, constructive or otherwise are questions not amenable to adjudication in quash proceedings. The principle in Madan Lal , that possession may be actual or constructive and conscious possession is often inferential, assumes relevance. At this stage, this Court cannot hold that ingredients of Section 20 are wholly absent.
17. Section 25 concerns permitting use of premises or conveyance. True, the petitioner disputes applicability. Yet the sufficiency or otherwise of evidence under Section 25 is a matter to be tested at trial.
18. The offence of conspiracy or abetment under Section 29 often rests upon circumstantial and interconnected evidence. At threshold, this Court cannot conclusively pronounce absence of conspiracy merely because petitioner disputes prosecution version.
19. This Court is in respectful agreement that Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu constitutes a watershed precedent. But the petitioner’s reliance on Tofan Singh is, in this Court’s view, overstretched. Tofan Singh prohibits conviction solely on Section 67 confessional statements. It does not lay down that wherever confessional material exists, prosecution must be quashed notwithstanding independent seizure-related material. Here, the prosecution claims independent interception material apart from confessional statements. That factual distinction is crucial.
20. It is correct, as held in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab , that foundational facts are necessary. Equally, once prima facie possession is alleged, presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 enter the field. Whether such foundational facts are ultimately proved is a matter for trial.
21. In Ezhilarasan v. State , B.Karthick v. Inspector of Police , and Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu , implication was essentially confession-centric without independent seizurelinked material. Present case stands on a materially different footing, according to prosecution records, since petitioner is alleged to have been intercepted at scene itself. Thus, those authorities do not compel quashment.
22. The petitioner seeks this Court to weigh seizure mahazar, CCTV stills, possession theory and infer innocence. Such exercise would plainly amount to conducting a trial within quash
proceedings. That is impermissible.

23. This Court finds:
(a) prosecution is not shown to rest solely on co-accused confession;
(b) disputed questions of conscious possession arise;
(c) prima facie materials exist requiring trial;
(d) case does not fall within State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal20 categories.
24. Consequently, no ground for quashment is made out. Offences under the NDPS Act stand on a distinct legislative footing where Parliament has consciously incorporated presumptions, reverse burdens and stringent controls in view of the grave societal menace posed by narcotic trafficking.
25. Equally, constitutional Courts remain vigilant that such rigour does not dilute procedural fairness. But fairness does not mean premature interdiction of trial where disputed foundational facts themselves require adjudication.

201992 Supp(1) SCC 335
26. Inherent jurisdiction is a safety valve against abuse ofprocess; it is not a substitute for trial. This Court is therefore unable to hold that the prosecution is so groundless or legally untenable as to warrant exercise of inherent powers.
27. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28. However, considering the petitioner’s submission, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the trial Court for dispensation of personal appearance or any other remedy available in law, which shall be considered on its own merits. It is made clear that observations made herein are confined to
adjudication of this quash petition and shall not influence trial on merits.
29. Ordered accordingly.
30.04.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1.The Judge,
Additional/Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml
CRL OP(MD)No.19064 of 2025
30.04.2026