Telangana High Court
Saligommula Mahendra Adityanath vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12107 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.5
seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.124 of 2024 on the file
of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, registered for
the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short
"NDPS Act").
2. Heard the submissions of Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the
petitioner is not a consumer and is facing false allegations and that
he is a student and there is no seizure from the petitioner herein
and hence, continuation of proceedings would spoil the career of
the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner. Learned counsel, in support of his
submissions, relied upon the decision of this Court in Dhandu
Surya Sumanth Reddy v. State of Telangana 1.
4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that
the petitioner is accused No.5 and is alleged to be a purchaser and
a consumer and that accused Nos.1 to 3 were remanded to judicial
custody and that they purchased 2 kgs. of Ganja and packed ganja
into small packets of 20 grams each and sold the said packets to
their friends and one of them is the present petitioner. Therefore,
she submitted that there is ample material collected against the
petitioner during the course of investigation and hence, prayed to
dismiss the petition.
5. Perused the record.
6. The petitioner herein is facing allegations for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the
NDPS Act. The allegations point out that the petitioner herein is a
consumer and that he used to purchase ganja from accused Nos.1
to 3.
2025 (1) ALT (Crl.) 373 (T.S.)
7. In Dhandu Surya Sumanth Reddy's case (supra), the only
witnesses were the Police Officers and panchas and there is no
incriminating material seized from the petitioner therein, except his
mobile phone. Thus, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu 2, wherein it was held that the
confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act
will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS
Act, it was held that there is no medical record to show that the
petitioner-accused therein has consumed any Narcotic Substance
and that except the confessional statement of petitioner, there is no
material on record to show that he has purchased Narcotic
Substance or consumed it. In the said circumstances, the
proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed.
8. In the present case also there is no seizure of Narcotic
Substance from the petitioner-accused No.5 and even as per the
charge sheet, the offence charged against the petitioner-accused
No.5 is under Section 27 of the NDPS Act and the recitals point out
that he is a consumer. It is further borne out by record that he was
not subjected to any medical examination and no such report is
found in the record.
(2021) 4 SCC 1
9. In view of the above held discussion and in light of the above
cited decision, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings
against the petitioner in S.C.No.124 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 12.11.2025
ds
