Telangana High Court
Mohd Ibrahim vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9750 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.46 of 2018 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court'), pertaining to
Crime No.402 of 2015 of P.S. Chaderghat, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Heard Mr. Mohammed Zaki, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.07.2015, 500
grams of ganja and one sword were found in the possession of
petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2. During the course of
confession, the petitioner-accused No.1 and accused No.2 have stated
that they are purchasing and selling the ganja at higher prices to the
needy customers to gain illegal profits. Basing on the same, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.402 of 2015 against them for the aforesaid
offences. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before
the trial Court. The case against petitioner-accused No.1 was split up and
re-numbered as C.C.No.46 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits
that as the petitioner-accused No.1 was absent before the trial Court,
NBWs were issued against him. Thereafter, the trial Court separated the
case against him and proceeded against accused No.2 for the aforesaid
offences. After conducting full-fledged trial, the trial Court, by its judgment
dated 30.12.2022 in C.C.No.1110 of 2015 has found accused No.2 not
guilty for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, acquitted him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when
accused No.2, who is similarly placed with the petitioner-accused No.1
was found not guilty and acquitted for the same charges based on the
testimony of same witnesses, the petitioner-accused No.1 is also entitled
to be acquitted. Even if trial is conducted, no purpose would be served,
as such, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 are liable
to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of
Pothula Suresh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein, the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh considering the scope of Section
482 of Cr.P.C., held that when some of the accused in the same case
2011 Crl.L.J. 609
found not guilty and acquitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings
against the other accused are liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in
the charge sheet are subject matter of trial. Though accused No.2 in the
crime was acquitted, the petitioner-accused No.1 has to appear before
the trial Court and face trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the
proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. On a perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with
regard to acquittal of accused No.2 for the same charges and finding him
not guilty after conducting full-fledged trial. When the evidence adduced
before the trial Court is not supporting the case of prosecution in total
and failed to establish the case against accused No.2, proceeding
against the petitioner-accused No.1 for the very same offences is a futile
exercise and would not yield any result of conviction on the basis of
testimony of witnesses proposed to be examined in C.C.No.46 of 2018.
By applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the
proceedings against the petitioner herein-accused No.1 are liable to be
quashed.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.46 of 2018 on the file of
the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad,
are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 27.03.2025
rev
