Guljar S/O. Alibhai Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9940 Bom

                                        1                                APPLN5975.2017.odt


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5975 OF 2017

Guljar S/o Alibhai Shaikh,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Opp. I.T.I. College, Pathardi Road,
Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar.                                            ...The Applicant

          VERSUS

1.        State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Inspector,
          Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar,
          Professor Chowk, Opp. To Akashwani,
          Savedi, Ahmednagar - 400 103.

2.        Police Inspector,
          Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar,
          Professor Chowk, Opp. To Akashwani,
          Savedi, Ahmednagar0400 103.             The Respondents...
                                             (Resp. No. 2 - Informant)

                                    ..........
                   Mr S. V. Natu, Advocate for the applicant
          Mrs Vaishali S. Choudhari, APP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
                                   .............


                                     CORAM  :    S. S. SHINDE   &
                                                 A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

                                     RESERVED ON        :    15.12.2017.
                                     PRONOUNCED ON :     21.12.2017.



JUDGMENT (PER A. M. DHAVALE, J.)

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

2 APPLN5975.2017.odt

the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission

stage.

2. Accused no. 21 - Guljar Shaikh has filed this application

u/s 482 for quashing of prosecution against him by way of Special

Sessions Case No. 218/2017 u/s 20 & 22 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The quashing is sought on the

ground that, there is only evidence against him in the form of

statement of co-accused.

3. As per charge-sheet, on 17.10.2017 at 06:29 a.m. on the

basis of information received, the Police of Tofkhana Police Station

Ahmednagar tried to stop two vehicles Innova Car MH24 V1699 and

MH17 AJ6943 in front of Hotel Sunny Palace while they were coming

from Aurangabad side. The drivers of the vehicles did not halt the

vehicles and speedily drove the vehicles towards Ahmednagar. Hence

those were chased by Police jeep and were stopped at 06:50 a.m. in

front of Asha Talkies by blocking their way with the police jeep. On

search of the vehicles, it was noticed that Innova Car was driven by

Sandip Anbhule and one Seema Panchariya was inside the car. 150

cannabis packets weighing 337.50 kg worth Rs. 50,62,500/- were

found in the Innova. Similarly, Sagar was driving Bolero Jeep and

3 APPLN5975.2017.odt

Ganesh Lonare and Shobha Kokate were inside the Jeep. On search,

136 cannabis packets weighing 306 kg. worth Rs. 45,90,000/- were

found in the said vehicle. Cash of Rs. 86,500/- was found with Seema

Panchariya. Accordingly, FIR was lodged by Head Constable Deepak

Rohakale, which was registered at C.R. No. II-121/2017. During

investigation, on inquiry with arrested persons from the vehicles, it was

disclosed that, they were going to sell those ganja packets to various

retailers including the present applicant Guljar Shaikh. Name of Guljar

Shaikh appears in the statement of Seema u/s 21, page 38 and 42 of

paper-book and in statement of Navnath Aher, pages 45 and 49 and in

pursuance of information received, several other persons including the

applicant Guljar Shaikh were arrested on 23.06.2017. The charge-

sheet discloses that no recovery was made from the present applicant.

Besides the statements of co-accused, there is no other evidence against

the present applicant.

4. Ld. Advocate Shri. S. V. Natu for the applicant submitted

that, statement of co-accused is not substantive evidence. It can be

used only for corroboration. No cognizance could have been taken on

the basis of such evidence against the present applicant. In this regard,

he relied on Monish Bhalla v Satya Bahl 2005 Cri.L.J. 1827

(Bombay) (Judgment by Mrs. V. K. Tahilramani, J.), Kashmira Singh v

4 APPLN5975.2017.odt

The State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 159 and Inspector of Police, Tamil

Nadu Versus Balaprasanna AIR 2009 (Supp.) (SC) 648.

5. The ld. APP opposed the application.

6. In Monish Bhalla's case, it is observed thus:

10. ......... There is no evidence that any narcotic drug or charas was seized from the possession of accused No. 2 in this case nor there is any documentary evidence to establish his role in the present crime. It means except the confessional statement made by accused No. 1 inculpating accused No. 2, there is no evidence with the prosecution against him. As per the settled law the confession of co-accused can be looked into only to provide corroboration to the other evidence against the accused. But when there is no other evidence, question of seeking corroboration from the confession of such a co-accused will not arise. It is well settled that the Court cannot hold the accused guilty only on the basis of the confession made by co- accused. Thus, it is well settled that under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the confession made by one accused is not substantive evidence against the co-accused. It has only a corroborative value.

7. In Kashmira Singh's case, in respect of evidence of confession of co-accused, it is observed thus:

10. .... The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be

5 APPLN5975.2017.odt

sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evi- dence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept.

8. In Haricharan Kurmi Versus State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC

1184, it is held that confession of co-accused implicating the accused

can be taken into consideration but it is extremely weak and there

could be no conviction without the fullest and strongest corroboration

on material particulars.

9. In Santosh Baccharam Patil Vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Anr. 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 997, the Division Bench at

the Principal Seat of this Court held as under:

Though there is nothing in Section 30 which prevents the Court from convicting the accused after taking the confession of co-accused into consideration, but the role attributed in the confession of co-accused uncorroborated by any other evidence is not alone sufficient to sustain conviction. Therefore, the Court should first marshal the evidence against the co-accused excluding the confession altogether for consideration and see whether if it is believed, the conviction can be safely based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession then, ofcourse It is not necessary to call the confession in aid, but if implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence, the Judge may call in aid the confession in order to lend assurance to the other evidence.

10. In Balaprasanna's case, while interpreting provisions of

6 APPLN5975.2017.odt

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the statement of the accused is

admissible only if the statement related distinctly to the fact thereby

discovered.

11. In Suresh Kalani v State of Maharashtra AIR 1998 SC

3258, it is held that, the statement of accused is not enough even to

frame charge against the accused.

12. In the present case, the investigation is carried out by the

regular Police and not by Special agency like NCB. Even in such case,

the statement of co-accused is a weak piece of evidence when it is

recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act. In the present case, the statement of

accused is inadmissible as the disclosure of names of the co-accused is

not a fact distinctly discovered in consequence of the information

received. It does not come within the purview of Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. In the first place, it is a statement of the accused against

the co-accused before police officer. It is hit by Section 25 of the

Evidence Act. We therefore find that there is no material even to frame

charge against the applicant/accused person. Obviously, the chances of

conviction are nil.

7 APPLN5975.2017.odt

13. Therefore, this is a fit case for quashing of the prosecution

against the accused persons. Hence the application is allowed. The

criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of Crime No. II-121/2017

registered with Tofkhana Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar, for the

offences punishable u/s 20 and 22 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985, stand quashed to the extent of the

applicant/accused no. 21-Gujlar Shaikh.

14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as

to costs.

         [ A. M. DHAVALE ]                               [ S. S. SHINDE ] 
                  JUDGE                                          JUDGE


sgp