The High Court · 2025

Order

This case arises out of a comPlaint reccived on O8-O3 2024 by the Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Fr lice Station, Hvderabad Ciq,. The said complaint was lodg': . based on credible information received on 07 -O3-2O24 at bout 20,2O hours that one Ahmed Hussain Amer @ Ghajini Ant r, u'ho is an active rowdy sheeter of P.S. Mirchowk, was regr' larly selling narcotic drugs to needy customers in association /ith another person by name Furkhan. Both the said ind r Lduals were frequenting Aza Khana Zehra with the intent of st' ing narcotic substances to prospective customers. Believing tht i.nformation to be true. the Inspector made a General Diary en ry, informed his superior ofltcer and sought permission from t re Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, under iection 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substan: :s Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act'), to verify the correctness of the information. Simultaneously, he informed the Clues Team anrl addressed a letter to the Assistant Engineer, Dabeerpura TSSPDCL, Hyderabad, requesting' that two government panchas be deputed to accompany the operation. In respontrt , Hamed Ali, 2 s/o Mohammed Ali, aged 39 years, working as an Operator in the Electricity Department and residing at H.No. 17-8-533/168/8, 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. l8-ll-4181H188, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Halka, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Inspector of

Police, accompanicd by P.C.3158 Sri K. Santosh Kumar, P.C. 30754 Sri ts. Anil Kumar, the Clues Team, and the said panchas, Ieft the police station carrying a weighing machine, laptop, mini printer, papers, and packing material. A GD entry was made recording the deparlure of the team.

1.1. The team reached the spot at about 23.5O hours, u.here thcy discreetly observed the suspect, Ahmed Hussain @ Amer @ Ghajini Amer, acting suspiciously. Police issued a notice under Section 5O 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 Ofhcer. Upon conducting a personal search of accused in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and mediators, two small zip-iock covers ", ) containing a white crystal-like substance and a Szur coloured mobile phone were recovered' The accu s police that u''hite crystal like substance was MDMrt drug, and that each packet contained one l substance; he purchased the same at a lower prir: at a higher price for quick prollts Owing to I conditions and to avoid traffic congestion, the cor 1 the accused to Mirchowk Police Station, which u'a:; sung biack- :d informed a synthetic 'am of the and sold it oor lighting lainant took situated less than haif a kilometre awaY' At the police s[ation, in the present:e

1.2. and Gazetted Officer, the confessional statement cf recorded. He confessed that he had conneclions r and Sayeed and disclosed that both were his chi r who sold Ganja, MDMA and other drugs to him at he used part of the drugs for self-consumption remaining at higher prices to earn quick profits effort. He admitted that on OT -O3-2O24, he pr: from Furkhan at Dabeerpura Darwaja at Rs'10'ol which Furkhan had obtained from Sayeed and thz cf mediators accused was 'ith Furkhan hood friends lower prices; rnd sold the without artY ;ured MDMA )/- per gram, t he intended to sell it to his known customers, namely, Mohar rmed Muneeb Uddin, Abdullah Mohsin Ali, Hyder Khan, Syed mral Ali and Mohammed Khaleelullah Siddique, at Rs' 15,000/- per gram. ar' 4

1.3. On the intervening night of 07 lO8-O3-2O24, around O0.10 hours, while accused was waiting near the lane behind Aza Khana Zehra to deliver MDMA to the said customers, he u,as apprehended by the police along with two grams of MDMA and his mobile phone. The Clues Team conhrmed that the scized 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 u,ere a ffixed 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. Pctrtioner - 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 @ Arner @ 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 5 present at the scene of offence and that no r rcrlmrnatlng material was seized from him. Petitioner also state I that he had appeared before the Investigating Ofhcer pursuar I to a notice issued under Section 4 1 A Cr. P. C. in complian ;c rvith the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 354(r of 2024. He further stated that police did not conduct any mc lical test to establish that he was in the habit of consunl ng narcotic substances. It was contended that the entire cast: agarnst him was based on inadmissible evidence, namely, conlt I sion of a co- accused and that conlinuation of the case amountr) I to abuse of the process of law. 1 .5. Petitioner relied on the judgment rl . the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Stngh u. State oJ 1\ '.mil Nadu1, wherein it was held that confessions recorded unc:r r Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible as evidence durinl; ,r-ial. He also referred to Criminal Petition No. 16327 of 2O'2'1 where this Court quashed proceedings in a similar NDPS cas : concerning Accused No.12, observing that accused who rv rs merely a consumer, was not present at the scene, and rr recovery or medical examinatiqn was conducted, hence, cc'l tinuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process of Iaw '\ (2021) 4 SCC 1 6 r-

2. Heard Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of respondcnts- 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 OZ .O3.2O24, Accused No.3 purchased 2 grams of MDMA drug from Accused No.2 al Dabeerpura Darwaja for Rs.10,0OO /- each gram in a small polythene zip lock cover and he thought to sell the same for Rs.15,O00,/ per gram. As per his plan, he was supposed to meet Accused 6 to i0 at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra, SJ Rotary, Mirchorvk 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 l{hana Zelnra; Accused No.3 was available at backside lane of Aza Khrana Zehra waitrng 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 \- '7 aliegation against petitioner is that he is a regurr and customer of Accused No.3 On 07 'O3 2024, \ purchased 2 grams of MDMA drug from Acc:rL Dabeerpura Darwaj a for Rs.10,OOO/- each grar-t r consumer :r:used No.3 ed No.2 at in a smali polythene zip lock cover and he thought to sell he same for Rs.15,000/- per gram As per his plan, he u-a'' supposed to meet Accused 6 to 10 at backside lane of Aza Khtr ra Zehra, SJ Rotary, Mirchowk in order to deliver two grams them. On 07/08.03.2O24, Accused No 3 reacht from Noor Khan Bazar by auto rickshaw and fl started rvalking and reached backside lane of Azrr l Accused No.3 was available at backside lane 'r rl MDMA to 1 S.I Rotary' m there, he -l-rana Zehra; Aza Khar,a Zehra wailirrg for Accused 6 to 1O in order to sell I {DMA drugs, meanwhile on credible information, police apprehLr: No.3. The principal contention of petitiont:r' <led Accused rs that his implication rests solely on the confession of a co t < is inadmissible. While the proposition laid down irL (supra) is that a confessional statement to an ll inadmissible in evidence, it does not preclude irr trial. The admissibility of such evidence is to'r during the course of trial, not at the stage of cused, which Tofan Singh )PS officer is /estigation or : adjudicated interlocutory revision. The contention that no seizure u'a s made from 8 petitioner's possession also cannot be a ground for quash when f-i: 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 specihcally 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 oflences 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 ailegations 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 satisfred that petitioner has not made out any case for grant of 9 the relief sought. The issues raised by him inr r lve clisputed facts and questions of evidentiary appreciation ,,r I ir:h can only be adjudicatecl by the tnal Court during the rriir This Court thcrefore, finds no reason to interfere.

6. In the light of the foregoing discussion, thc Criminal Petition is dismissed. 7 . Consequently, miscellaneous Applic: 1 ons, if any shall stand closed. ii.,x+'$'"A'EFRRX SD/. 1 ASSI t\1\ ,/TRUE COPY// lL"-,o* oFFtcER To,

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally' Hyde i bad' 2 The Station House Officer' Mirchowk Police Station' H / lerabad 3. One CC to Mr. N VISHAL' Advocate [OPUCI : H?&"Jii:"',*\<c p'"^'G" 1rr3t^co'F a't ' +l' { tet'r^8c*a RC,rySL Yi- (c$) HIGH COURT DATED: 18111t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6210 of 2025 i( ,.; c (-' iirE S14 i '\'rl\ 0 5 JAil ?ir2b \ ,i 't ,'l \t '\*i.rprr '1:_.---- - t) Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Di;missed. I I I I I T I t i I I a i i j ; ;. t i ^4.\ roY " "6 Hetr