State Of Gujarat vs Mohmad Iqbal Abdul Karim Patel ... on 8 April, 2026

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.RA/881/2005                              JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

                                                                                                            undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                          R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
                                      SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 881 of 2005

                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                        ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting               Yes           No

                        ==========================================================
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                         Versus
                                        MOHMAD IQBAL ABDUL KARIM PATEL (GHANCHI)
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                        MR NASIR SAIYED(6145) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                      Date : 08/04/2026
                                                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 14.06.2025 rendered by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Surat in NDPS Case No.2 of 2004.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3. It is the case of the applicant that on 29.04.2003 at about 14:00 hours, the complainant, who was then serving as Prohibition Superintendent, Prohibition Striking Force, Sector No.1, Surat, received secret information that one Aayeshabanu, wife of Abdul Rajak @ Lal Chadar Hamidkhan Pathan, residing at Bapunagar hutments, was selling charas near the house of one Jakir Shaikh at Bapunagar and that a stock of charas was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/881/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

stored in a hut situated under Swami Vivekanand Bridge on the way to Adajan, which had been rented to Sabanabanu Sidiq Meman. Upon receiving the information, the complainant informed his superior officers, complied with the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, called panch witnesses and proceeded to the place where the contraband was allegedly stored. Before conducting the search, the accused was informed in writing under Section 50 of the NDPS Act about her right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, which she declined. Thereafter, a search was conducted and a substance suspected to be charas was recovered. An officer from Forensic Science Laboratory visited the spot and opined prima facie that the substance appeared to be charas. Upon weighing, the substance was found to be 2 kg, 108 grams and 860 mg. Samples were drawn, sealed and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, which later confirmed the substance to be charas. During inquiry, the tenant, Sabanabanu, stated that the substance had been kept by the owner of the hut, namely Aayeshabanu. After her arrest and interrogation, she disclosed that the contraband had been brought by the present opponent. Since the opponent was absconding, a charge-sheet was initially filed only against Aayeshabanu. Subsequently, upon arrest of the opponent, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed and NDPS Case No.2 of 2004 was registered against him. However, before framing of charge, the opponent filed an application at Exh.4 and by judgment and order dated 14.06.2005, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Surat discharged the opponent without framing charge. Hence, the presenta application.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/881/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

4. Learned APP appearing for the applicant-State submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in discharging the accused. It was submitted that the accused was absconding and, therefore, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed, which culminated into Special Case No.29 of 2023. It was further submitted that nowadays drug trafficking is on the rise and such illegal activities are dragging youngsters into the drug business for earning easy money. The learned Judge erred in not properly interpreting the provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act with regard to conspiracy. Therefore, it was submitted that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in discharging the accused and, hence, the present application deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent-accused has been implicated in the offence only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. It was further submitted that during the pendency of the present revision application, Sessions Case No.29 of 2003 came to be decided and the accused therein were acquitted. It was pointed out that the wife of the present respondent-accused, namely Aayeshabanu, who was put to trial, also came to be acquitted of the charges levelled against her. The allegation against the respondent-accused is that he, in collusion and conspiracy with others, was indulging in drug trafficking. Thereafter, NDPS Case No.2 of 2024 came to be registered against the present respondent-accused and both the cases were tried together.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/881/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

Hence, it was requested that the present application be dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that charge- sheets were filed against both the respondent and his wife. The wife of the respondent was tried in NDPS Case No.29 of 2003 and came to be acquitted. Thereafter, the accused herein came to be arrested on 06.11.2023 and NDPS Case No.2 of 2024 came to be registered against him. As per the case of the prosecution, both the respondent and his wife were engaged in the business of selling charas and, based on the disclosure made by Aayeshabanu, the respondent came to be arrested.

7. However, upon perusal of the allegations levelled against the present respondent-accused, it appears that except for the statement made by Aayeshabanu during interrogation that the respondent had supplied the contraband, no other allegation has been levelled against the respondent-accused and no independent evidence has been collected in this regard. Thus, except for the statement of the co-accused, no corroborative piece of evidence or any other legal evidence has been produced on record against the respondent-accused. More particularly, the co-accused, on the same set of facts and after full-fledged trial, has already been acquitted and the present respondent had also been discharged.

8. In view of the above, and particularly in light of Section 67

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/881/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

of the NDPS Act as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, AIR (2011) SC 2490 an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused cannot be relied upon as substantial evidence. Therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order discharging the accused. Hence, no interference is called for.

9. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where the decision is completely erroneous or where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court are examined, it appears that the learned trial Court has already appreciated the facts and findings of fact are not to be upset unless they are found to be perverse. Findings of fact are not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC

460. As no perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court and as the learned trial Court has properly assigned reasons and recorded findings based on the evidence led before it, no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.

10. It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/881/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026

undefined

correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of the individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case so as to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Courts below have recorded findings of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the Revisional Court does not arise unless such findings are found to be totally perverse.

11. In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application fails and stands dismissed. Rule, if any, is hereby discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI