Dilip Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16726 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                              ON THE 16 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1104 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           DILIP SINGH S/O KALUSINGH SOUNDHIYA, AGED
                           ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                           BEEJANAGARI, THANA BAROD DISTT AGAR MALWA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI A. K. SAXENA, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THR. P.S. SUSNER AGAR MALWA (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                               .....NON-APPLICANT/STATE
                           (BY SHRI PRANAY JOSHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR STATE)

                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Shajapur in S.T. No.02/2020, whereby charges for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(B) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act have been framed against the applicant.

Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 21.03.2020, ASI Kamlesh Chouhan, during routine checking intercepted an Alto Car bearing registration No.RJ20CF8906 at Umariya Road crossing Susner, then co- Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 12/17/2022 12:36:20 PM

accused persons Golu, Kalu and Suresh fled away from the spot. They were arrested and interrogated and after complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, about 14.500 kgs. of Cannabis was seized from the aforesaid vehicle. During investigation, their disclosure statements were recorded and they disclosed that they procured the aforesaid contraband from the applicant and applicant was also involved in the crime. As the applicant was absconding therefore, charge-sheet against co-accused persons was filed before the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, Shajapur. After arrest of the applicant, supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the same Court i.e. the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act, Shajapur for the offence

punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(B) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been implicated in the matter only on the basis of disclosure statements made by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Nothing identifiable has been seized from the applicant in pursuance of the disclosure statements made by co-accused persons. There is nothing else on record against the applicant except the disclosure statements of co-accused persons. The disclosure statements made by the co-accused persons are inadmissible in evidence and there is no legal and admissible evidence against him.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State has opposed the prayer and submits that it is apparent from the record that applicant provided the aforesaid contraband to the co-accused persons and he was very well involved in the crime therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against him hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that after the arrest of co- Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 12/17/2022 12:36:20 PM

accused persons, their disclosure statements were recorded, wherein they disclosed the name of the applicant as the person who provided the aforesaid contraband. Applicant's disclosure statement has also been recorded but nothing has been seized in pursuance of his disclosure statement or the disclosure statements made by the co-accused persons. There is nothing else on record against the applicant. The disclosure statements made by the co- accused persons with regard to the complicity of the applicant in the crime are inadmissible in evidence, as no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant in pursuance of aforesaid disclosure statements and as observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pappu Singh @ Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P. (MCRC No.36467/2019 dated 25.02.2020). Relevant paras are reproduced below:-

33. The law is now well settled that the information given by th e co-accused is inadmissible if the same does not lead to any recovery. In a string of judgment right from the pre-independence era, the Courts have settled this proposition of law. We can refer some of the judgments passed in Pullukari Kotaya Vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184, Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 597, State of Maharashtra

v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 17: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 230 (page 36), Mustkeem Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724, Asar Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264, Kusal Toppo Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2018 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 12/17/2022 12:36:20 PM

OnLine SC 1563, Valiyaveetil Ashraf v. State, S.H.O. Kottakkal Police Station reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 441 : 1994 Cri LJ 555 (page 561) and Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 SCC OnLine MP 442 : 2001 Cri LJ 875 (Page

876).

34. In this respect we can also illustrate some judgments Cr.

R. No.182/2020 of this Court rendered in Anant Kumar Vs. State of MP reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499, Sharif Khan Vs. State of M.P. 1997 (II) MPWN page 254 N 173, Raghu Thakur Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPHT 116, Suresh Upadhayay Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 837/2014 dated 5th March 2014, Rajveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 265, Raju @ Rajesh Chawla Vs. State of M.P. order dated 06.10.2015 rendered in MCRC No. 3579/2015, Gajendra Singh Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. reported in MANU/MP/0976/2016, Madan Lal Vs. State of M.P. order dated 27.10.2017 rendered in CRR No. 69/2017, Faijal & ors Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 10904/2017 dated 19th February 2018, Dashrath Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 5452/2017 dated 26 November 2018, Mohamad Wasim Mewati Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 4425/2019 Dated 11th March 2019.

35. Thus, it is explicit that the information given or disclosure made by the accused to the police, which does not lead to any recovery, is not admissible in evidence against co-accused and on the basis of such inadmissible evidence, the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law, which should Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 12/17/2022 12:36:20 PM

not and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Though, the powers under Section 482 are extraordinary in nature and has to be used sparingly and cautiously, but these are the cases; where this Court is fully satisfied that non use of such inherent powers would lead to or would cause injustice. It would be in the interest of justice or necessary to achieve the object of the law that no innocent person shall be allowed to face unnecessary prosecution, if there being no evidence at all against him. Therefore, all the petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending against respective petitioners therein before the trial Court are hereby quashed. The petitioners of respective petitions are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds, if furnished, stand discharged.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and the judgement cited by the Coordinate Bench, this Court is of the view that as the information given or disclosure made by the co-accused does not lead to recovery of any identifiable, the prosecution of the applicant is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, impugned order dated 08.03.2021, whereby charges have been framed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20(b) (B) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act is set aside and applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charges.

Accordingly, criminal revision is allowed and stands disposed of with the above directions.

Certified copy as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 12/17/2022 12:36:20 PM

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE gp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: GEETA PRAMOD Signing time: 12/17/2022 12:36:20 PM