Judicial Insight
Back to feed
IndiaCriminal

The State Of Karnataka vs Sadiq Pasha

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
Oct 1, 2026
Citation
2026 INSC 1083
Judges
J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran

AI breakdown

  • The High Court quashed charges against a defendant involved in a drug case because no drugs were found on him, only a co-accused's confession linked him.
  • The Supreme Court of India reversed this decision, allowing the charges to be tried, stating the High Court improperly quashed them.
  • The ruling emphasized that confessional statements alone are insufficient for conviction without further evidence.

Outcome

The appeal stands allowed with the above direction.

Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.

Parties

  • Applicant

    The State Of Karnataka

  • Respondent

    Sadiq Pasha

Judgment text (excerpt)
The State Of Karnataka vs Sadiq Pasha on 1 October, 2026 Non-Reportable 2026 INSC 1083 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4720 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6323 of 2026) The State of Karnataka & Anr. ...Appellant(s) Versus Sadiq Pasha ...Respondent(s) ORDER Leave granted. 2. The State has filed the above appeal against the order of the High Court which quashed the proceedings in Special Case Crime No.24 of 2022, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii) C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (NDPS Act). The appellant was declared an absconder, and a split chargesheet was drawn against him. The impugned order quashed the criminal proceedings so pending, relying on the decisions of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.10.05 16:47:39 IST Nadu1, State (by NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Reason: 1 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 1 of 11 Arimutta and Another2, Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau3 and Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan v. State of Gujarat and Another4. 3. We heard Sri Aman Panwar, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State and none appeared for the respondent accused, who was served through the Commissioner of Police, w…
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.