Telangana High Court
Hyder Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 18 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6210 OF 2025
O R D E R:
This case arises out of a complaint received on
08-03-2024 by the Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station,
Hyderabad City. The said complaint was lodged based on
credible information received on 07-03-2024 at about 20.20
hours that one Ahmed Hussain Amer @ Ghajini Amer, who is an
active rowdy sheeter of P.S. Mirchowk, was regularly selling
narcotic drugs to needy customers in association with another
person by name Furkhan. Both the said individuals were
frequenting Aza Khana Zehra with the intent of selling narcotic
substances to prospective customers. Believing the information
to be true, the Inspector made a General Diary entry, informed
his superior officer and sought permission from the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, under Section 42(2)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short, 'the Act'), to verify the correctness of the information.
Simultaneously, he informed the Clues Team and addressed a
letter to the Assistant Engineer, Dabeerpura, TSSPDCL,
Hyderabad, requesting that two government panchas be
deputed to accompany the operation. In response, Hamed Ali,
s/o Mohammed Ali, aged 39 years, working as an Operator in
the Electricity Department and residing at H.No.
17-8-533/168/B, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad, and (2) Mohammed
Rasheed Khan, son of Mohammed Miya Khan, aged 51 years,
working as a Field Worker in the Electricity Department and
residing at H.No. 18-11-418/H/88, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Halka,
Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Inspector of
Police, accompanied by P.C. 3158 Sri K. Santosh Kumar, P.C.
30754 Sri B. Anil Kumar, the Clues Team, and the said
panchas, left the police station carrying a weighing machine,
laptop, mini printer, papers, and packing material. A GD entry
was made recording the departure of the team.
1.1. The team reached the spot at about 23.50 hours,
where they discreetly observed the suspect, Ahmed Hussain @
Amer @ Ghajini Amer, acting suspiciously. Police issued a
notice under Section 50 explaining his right to be searched
before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accused opted to be
searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Sri M. Bala
Swamy, Inspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar Police Station,
Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad City acted as Gazetted Officer.
Upon conducting a personal search of accused in the presence
of the Gazetted Officer and mediators, two small zip-lock covers
containing a white crystal-like substance and a Samsung black-
coloured mobile phone were recovered. The accused informed
police that white crystal-like substance was MDMA, a synthetic
drug, and that each packet contained one gram of the
substance; he purchased the same at a lower price and sold it
at a higher price for quick profits. Owing to poor lighting
conditions and to avoid traffic congestion, the complainant took
the accused to Mirchowk Police Station, which was situated less
than half a kilometre away.
1.2. At the police station, in the presence of mediators
and Gazetted Officer, the confessional statement of accused was
recorded. He confessed that he had connections with Furkhan
and Sayeed and disclosed that both were his childhood friends
who sold Ganja, MDMA and other drugs to him at lower prices;
he used part of the drugs for self-consumption and sold the
remaining at higher prices to earn quick profits without any
effort. He admitted that on 07-03-2024, he procured MDMA
from Furkhan at Dabeerpura Darwaja at Rs.10,000/- per gram,
which Furkhan had obtained from Sayeed and that he intended
to sell it to his known customers, namely, Mohammed Muneeb
Uddin, Abdullah Mohsin Ali, Hyder Khan, Syed Imran Ali and
Mohammed Khaleelullah Siddique, at Rs.15,000/- per gram.
1.3. On the intervening night of 07/08-03-2024, around
00.10 hours, while accused was waiting near the lane behind
Aza Khana Zehra to deliver MDMA to the said customers, he
was apprehended by the police along with two grams of MDMA
and his mobile phone. The Clues Team confirmed that the
seized white crystal-like substance was a narcotic drug. Upon
weighing, the total quantity was found to be two grams, i.e. one
gram in each of the two zip-lock packets. A seizure-cum-
confession panchanama was prepared in the presence of the
mediators and the Gazetted Officer, and panch-signed chits
were affixed over the seized articles. The seized material and
accused were produced before the Station House Officer for
taking further necessary action under the NDPS Act, 1985.
1.4. Petitioner - Accused No. 8 contended that he was
subsequently implicated in the case without any legal
justification and without recovery of any contraband from his
possession. He stated that his implication rests solely on the
confession of Accused No. 3, namely Ahmed Hussain @ Amer @
Ghajini Amer, recorded under Section 67 of the Act. It was
alleged by police that petitioner was a customer of Accused No.
3 and a habitual consumer of narcotic substances. However,
petitioner denied such allegations, asserting that he was not
present at the scene of offence and that no incriminating
material was seized from him. Petitioner also stated that he had
appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to a notice
issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in compliance with the
orders passed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 3546 of 2024. He
further stated that police did not conduct any medical test to
establish that he was in the habit of consuming narcotic
substances. It was contended that the entire case against him
was based on inadmissible evidence, namely, confession of a co-
accused and that continuation of the case amounted to abuse of
the process of law.
1.5. Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 1,
wherein it was held that confessions recorded under Section 67
of the NDPS Act is inadmissible as evidence during trial. He also
referred to Criminal Petition No. 16327 of 2024, where this
Court quashed proceedings in a similar NDPS case concerning
Accused No.12, observing that accused who was merely a
consumer, was not present at the scene, and no recovery or
medical examination was conducted, hence, continuation of
proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law.
(2021) 4 SCC 1
2. Heard Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel for petitioner
and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on
behalf of respondents. She contends that petitioner was
arrayed as Accused No.8 in Crime No. 48 of 2024 of Mirchowk
Police Station; Accused 6 to 10 are regular consumers and
customers of Accused No.3. It is submitted that on 07.03.2024,
Accused No.3 purchased 2 grams of MDMA drug from Accused
No.2 at Dabeerpura Darwaja for Rs.10,000/- each gram in a
small polythene zip lock cover and he thought to sell the same
for Rs.15,000/- per gram. As per his plan, he was supposed to
meet Accused 6 to 10 at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra, SJ
Rotary, Mirchowk in order to deliver two grams of MDMA to
them. On 07/08.03.2024, Accused No.3 reached SJ Rotary
from Noor Khan Bazar by auto rickshaw and from there, he
started walking and reached backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra;
Accused No.3 was available at backside lane of Aza Khana
Zehra waiting for Accused 6 to 10 in order to sell MDMA drugs,
meanwhile on credible information, police apprehended Accused
No.3.
3. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions and perused the material placed on record. The
allegation against petitioner is that he is a regular consumer
and customer of Accused No.3. On 07.03.2024, Accused No.3
purchased 2 grams of MDMA drug from Accused No.2 at
Dabeerpura Darwaja for Rs.10,000/- each gram in a small
polythene zip lock cover and he thought to sell the same for
Rs.15,000/- per gram. As per his plan, he was supposed to
meet Accused 6 to 10 at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra, SJ
Rotary, Mirchowk in order to deliver two grams of MDMA to
them. On 07/08.03.2024, Accused No.3 reached SJ Rotary
from Noor Khan Bazar by auto rickshaw and from there, he
started walking and reached backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra;
Accused No.3 was available at backside lane of Aza Khana
Zehra waiting for Accused 6 to 10 in order to sell MDMA drugs,
meanwhile on credible information, police apprehended Accused
No.3. The principal contention of petitioner is that his
implication rests solely on the confession of a co-accused, which
is inadmissible. While the proposition laid down in Tofan Singh
(supra) is that a confessional statement to an NDPS officer is
inadmissible in evidence, it does not preclude investigation or
trial. The admissibility of such evidence is to be adjudicated
during the course of trial, not at the stage of interlocutory
revision. The contention that no seizure was made from
petitioner's possession also cannot be a ground for quash when
prosecution case is based on a chain of supply and
consumption of narcotics, linking all the accused persons.
4. Reliance placed by petitioner on Criminal Petition
No.16327 of 2024 is distinguishable on facts. In that case,
accused was not named by any co-accused in a corroborated
statement, nor was there any chain of transaction established.
In the present case, petitioner is specifically named by Accused
No.3, who provided detailed information regarding procurement
and sale of MDMA. The connection of petitioner to the network
forms part of the investigation record, which is yet to be tested
during trial. The veracity and admissibility of such material can
only be tested at trial and cannot be a ground to stay
proceedings altogether.
5. The NDPS Act, 1985 is a special enactment to
combat narcotic offences and prompt prosecution is necessary
to curb the menace of drug abuse. Granting stay of proceedings
in such serious offences, merely on the ground of denial of
allegations or absence of seizure from one accused, would
amount to interference with due process and frustrate the
statutory objective. On overall consideration, this Court is
satisfied that petitioner has not made out any case for grant of
the relief sought. The issues raised by him involve disputed
facts and questions of evidentiary appreciation which can only
be adjudicated by the trial Court during the trial. This Court
therefore, finds no reason to interfere.
6. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal
Petition is dismissed.
7. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
18th November 2025
ksld
