Supreme Court: DRI Cannot Secure NDPS Conviction Based Only on Statements of Co-Accused

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 31.10.2026

Supreme Court: DRI Cannot Secure NDPS Conviction Based Only on Statements of Co-Accused

The Supreme Court of India set aside Surinder Kumar Khanna’s drug-trafficking conviction because the prosecution had no substantive evidence against him beyond statements made by his co-accused.

Background of the case

The case arose from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence operation in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Officers intercepted a white Indica car after receiving information that narcotics were being transported from Jammu towards Chandigarh. Two occupants, Raj Kumar alias Raju and Surinder Pal Singh, were found in the vehicle.

A search of the car reportedly led to the recovery of four packets concealed in the boot-door area. The packets allegedly contained approximately 3.990 kg of heroin. The two occupants stated that the consignment had been collected from an individual in Jammu and was intended for delivery near PGI Chandigarh.

Although Surinder Kumar Khanna was not present at the interception and no contraband was recovered from him, investigators later alleged that he was involved in the trafficking operation. A supplementary complaint was filed against him under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Conviction by the trial court and High Court

The trial court convicted Khanna and sentenced him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the prison term to 10 years.

The High Court relied principally on statements made by Raj Kumar and Surinder Pal Singh under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It held that these statements were admissible and established Khanna’s involvement in drug trafficking.

The central issue before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether a co-accused’s alleged confession could, by itself, justify another accused person’s conviction.

The prosecution accepted that, apart from the co-accused’s statements, there was no evidence directly connecting Khanna with the seized heroin or the other accused. Call-data records placed before the Court showed contact with a person in Dubai, but did not show that Khanna was in touch with either co-accused when they were apprehended.

What the Court held

The Court reaffirmed a fundamental evidentiary rule: a confession by one accused is not substantive evidence against a co-accused. It may only be considered to support or “lend assurance” to other independent evidence that already points to the co-accused’s guilt.

The judgment relied on established precedents, including Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar. Those decisions explain that a court must first assess the evidence against an accused without considering a co-accused’s confession. Only if independent evidence is sufficient to support conviction may the confession be used as an additional source of assurance.

The Court also noted that the NDPS Act contains no provision comparable to special statutes that expressly permit a co-accused’s confession to be used against another accused in specified circumstances.

Importance of Section 67 statements

The judgment acknowledged that the legal status of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been referred to a larger Bench in an earlier case. However, the Court held that even if those statements were treated as confessions, they could not alone establish Khanna’s guilt.

That distinction was decisive. The question was not merely whether the co-accused’s statements could be considered; it was whether they could independently prove a separate accused person’s involvement. The Court answered no.

Final outcome

Finding no substantive evidence against Khanna, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal, quashed his conviction and sentence, and acquitted him of the charges. It directed that he be released immediately unless required in custody in another case.

Key legal takeaway

Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reinforces that criminal conviction must rest on reliable, independent evidence. A co-accused’s statement may corroborate an existing case, but it cannot fill the absence of evidence against another person accused of the offence.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi