Akash Aggarwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 634 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.408 of 2023

Akash Aggarwal                                         ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0045 of

2023, under Section 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station

Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 28.02.2023, 105 grams

smack was recovered from the co-accused Ram Avtar. When

arrested, the co-accused revealed it to the police that he had

bought the smack from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that there is no material against the petitioner except the

statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible. It is

submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the

investigation. He apprehends that he might be arrested. It is

also submitted that even the confessional statement, itself, is

not an evidence, in view of the law, as laid down in the case of

Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC OnLine SC

882.

5. In the case of Tofan Singh (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has interpreted the provisions of Section 67 of

the Act and in Para 404 of the judgment observed that " A

confessional statement does not automatically result in

the conviction of an accused offender. Such statements

have to be tendered and proved in accordance with the

law. The evidentiary value of the statement which is

confessional in nature has to be weighed and assessed by

the court at the trial."

6. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are exceptional circumstances to do so. The truthfulness and

veracity of the FIR may not be examined at this Stage.

7. It is true that in the instant case, the petitioner

has been named on the basis of the statement the statement

given by co-accused, from whose possession 105 grams

smack was allegedly recovered. Whether the statement of the

co-accused is true or not, it falls for scrutiny during

investigation. It cannot be said that the FIR does not survive

qua the petitioner.

8. Insofar as apprehension of arrest is concerned,

undoubtedly, there are various provisions, which guide the

Investigating Officer as to how to affect an arrest. This Court

is not required to deal with those issues in this writ petition

9. In the instant case, the FIR discloses the

commission of offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly,

the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

10. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.03.2023 Ravi Bisht