Sagar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), has been preferred for quashment of F.I.R bearing Crime No.148/2016 registered against the applicant at Police Station - Ratangarh, District Neemuch for offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Javad, District Neemuch in S.S. T. No.01/2017.

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 12/07/2016, police received a source information that one person namely Gopal and two other persons are going to Deken, Rajasthan by Bhagwanpura road to deliver illegal poppystraw. On the basis of this information, one Innova car bearing No. RJ 21 UV 2756 was intercepted and police found two persons in the vehicle, namely Ashok Kumar and Mahendra. Police briefed them about the secret information. During search, total quantity of 1 quintal, 1 kg and 600 grams of poppy straw was recovered from the vehicle. After completing necessary formalities Police arrested Ashok Kumar & Mahendra and recorded their statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in which they informed the Police that they procured the contraband from one Gopal and were transporting the contra-band for delivering it to the present applicant. On that basis, the applicant has also been implicated in the present crime.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that the applicant was not present on the spot and no contra-band has been recovered from his possession. The complicity of the applicant is alleged only on the basis of the disclosure statement, said to have been made by co-acused persons Ashok Kumar and Mahendra, in which they deposed that they were transporting the alleged contraband for delivering it to present applicant, however, no fact as such could be discovered on the basis of his statement, therefore, there is no legally admissible evidence within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'The Act') amounting to discovery of fact. Apart from this there is no other evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the present crime. The contention is that in the absence of any legally admissible evidence, F.I.R bearing Crime No.148/2016 registered at Police Station - Ratangarh, District Neemuch and the consequential proceedings qua the applicant deserves to be quashed because the prosecution under such premises will amount to sheer harassment of the applicant.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and prayed for rejection of this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R and no contraband has been recovered from his possession. Neither he was the owner of the vehicle nor he was present in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. He was not apprehended from the spot. He was implicated in the present matter only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused persons Ashok Kumar and Mahendra, recorded under Section 27 of 'The Act', in which they deposed that they were transporting the alleged contraband for delivering it to present applicant. The memorandum of co-accused is nothing except a confessional statement given before the police officials, which is not admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Apart from this the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the applicant was involved in the present crime.

Section 27 of 'The Act', in terms, provides that only that information which distinctly relates to the discovery of fact is admissible in evidence. In the landmark decision of Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 P.C. 67, it has been held that unless there is discovery of fact, statement made u/S. 27 of 'The Act' has no evidentiary value. It has further been held that in a case, it can seldom happen that information leading to discovery of a fact can be made, the foundation of the prosecution case because it is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in the manner allowed by law.

As there is no legally admissible evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the alleged offence, therefore, in view of the mandates of the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors., v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors JT 1990(4) S.C. 650, considering the fact that the evidence collected in support of the allegation made against the applicant do not disclose commission of alleged offence or make out case against him, it would be appropriate to quash the F.I.R in the aforesaid matter qua applicant.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the F.I.R bearing Crime No.148/2016 registered at Police Station - Ratangarh, District Neemuch for offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the consequent proceedings against the applicant are hereby quashed.

Certified copy as per Rules.