Telangana High Court
Dhandu Surya Sumanth Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 January, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10101 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (for
short 'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused No.13 to quash the
proceedings against him in FIR No. 10 of 2022 on the file of
P.S.Punjagutta. The offences alleged against him are under Section 8
(c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (c) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act) and Section 14 (a)
(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short, the Act,1946).
2. The allegations against the petitioner/accused No.13 are that
the Additional Inspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station lodged
a complaint stating that on 06.01.2022 at about 0600 hours, he
received information from Sub-lnspector of Police that two persons
were in possession of huge quantity of Narcotic substance Drug i.e.,
Cocaine and trying to sell the same to needy people near GVK Mall,
Punjagutta. After obtaining permission to verify the veracity of
information, they along with mediators and staff of P.S. Punjagutta
went to the said place and at about 6.45 hours found two persons in
suspicious circumstances, they were caught and recovered 83 small
sachets from them which were found to be Narcotic substance
namely Cocaine. During enquiry it was revealed that the main
accused Tony, who is A.1 alleged to be an international drug peddler
and others are absconding. Basing on the said information, a case in
Cr.No.10 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner/accused
No.13 for the said offences.
3. Heard Sri K.S.Naga Narsimha, learned counsel for the
petitioner/ accused No.13 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
No.13 is that petitioner was charged under Section 27 of the NDPS
Act, wherein it was stated that the arrested accused No. 1 committed
the offence which is liable to be punished under Section 8 (c) r/w.20
(b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act and the accused Nos.10 to 22 committed the
offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The punishment for the
said offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year or with fine which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both.
5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the entire material is against accused No.3. The remand report
and FIR do not disclose any prima-facie case against the petitioner/
accused No.13 for the alleged offence under Section 27 of the NDPS
Act. There is no material to frame any charge under Section 27 of
the NDPS Act. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
neither arrested at the site nor any contraband was seized from him.
The only witnesses in the present case are the police officers and
panchas and there is no incriminating material seized from the
petitioner, except his mobile phone. Earlier petitioners and others
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail vide Crl.P.No.1452
of 2022 and the same was allowed.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in
the similar circumstances, the accused No.15 in this crime filed
Crl.P.No.5502 of 2023 seeking quashing of the proceedings in
Cr.No.10 of 2022 and this Court allowed the said petition quashing
the same and the petitioner herein also stand on the same footing.
7. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed for quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.10 of
2022 stating that investigation is still pending and police have to
collect the evidence to file charge sheet. A.1 is an international drug
peddler and petitioner is addicted to consume Cocaine. As such,
prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is
no record to show that petitioner/accused No.13 is involved in this
crime. The petitioner/accused No.13 was neither arrested at the site
nor was any contraband seized from them. Moreover, all the
witnesses including panch witnesses in this case were official
witnesses.
9. As seen from the records, the names of petitioner/accused
No.13 was not found in the FIR, whereas in the remand report it is
mentioned that A.1 to A.3 came to Hyderabad to sell small quantity
of contraband to the needy people. Further, the record also reveals
that no incriminating material is seized from the petitioner/accused
No.13 except mobile phone, which has been seized but the same has
been handed over to him.
10. It is the specific contention of prosecution that the petitioner
has made confession before the police on 20.01.2022 at about 09.30
hours, admitting his guilt of purchasing the said narcotic substance
from accused No.1 and consuming it. The confession made before
the police is not admissible in the eye of law, unless said confession
led to recovery of any incriminating material objects.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of
Tamilnadu 1 wherein it was held that the confessional statements
recoded under section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible
in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. However, there is no
medical record to show that the petitioner/accused No.13 has
consumed any narcotic substance. Except the confessional statement
of the petitioner/accused No.13, there is no material on record to
show that he has purchased the narcotic substance or consumed it.
Further, the punishment for the offence under Section 27 of the
NDPS Act is one year and the alleged FIR was registered on
06.01.2022 and till date no charge sheet is filed. Even as per Section
468(2) (b) of Cr.P.C., if the final report is not filed within a period of
one year, it is deemed to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the
benefit has to be given to the petitioner/accused No.13.
(2021) 4 SCC 1
12. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for
quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.13
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No. 13 in Crime No.10
of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police
Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section 8(c)
r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act and Section 14 (a) (b) of
the Act, 1946, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 06.01.2025.
BV
