The High Court · 2025

AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr-P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lr4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in s.c.NDPS.No. 12 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad in the interest of justice l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in S.C. NDpS.No. 12 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri -T. Frrdyumn, Kumar Reddy, representing for Sri T. S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate for the ietitioners and Sri E. Ganesh, Aslistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER .IIHE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANT CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5515 OF 2024 ORDER: Tl-ris (j'irninal Petition is hlcd under Sectron 1rl2 of Clode of Criminrrl )'ocedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') t() ql ash the proceeclings r lainst the petitioners in S.C.NDPS.No i 12 ol 2023 on the lile c:f I Additional Metropolitan Sessiotrs .J udgr: at Nampa1l1., rv r:rein the petitioners herein are accusc'rl !os.5 to

7. The clft':rtr--s alleged against them are unCer Slcrltor-r B (c) r lu,.2O (b) (:i, tC) ar,d 27 of NDPS Act.

2. The f ,r :r s of the case are that on 29 .O3 .'.10221 . t.L e S.I. of Police, lodge,l a report before lhe concerned policc s trl ing that he rece ir.ed r credible information that two person :' r rr ccming to Druva. Errclave on their bike, without any nLlrli)('r clatc for delivering LIr s 1-r oil to one person by name P.Chanrlr as lekarr at Druva Er-r:1a'r'. Believing the information to bc Lrue, he follou'ed the gurdelincs and informed the same to his sttpe r or officers, oblainerl trr:r nrission from ACP, Begumpet to rzcrifl t he veraci[r of inforrrLat c r. He along with his staff rushed to the sl,ot along with sufh,:je rt NDPS investigation kit and trierd t, r a1 prehend three srrspt:r ts among which one escaped lrom 'Lhe' ;pot. Thc two suspe,l s were taken into custody. On en< .-ri 1., they 2 :a disclosed their names and confessed that they are in possession of Hash oil. The complainant informed them that possession of the same is an offence under Section NDpS Act, taken them to Gazetted officer and secured mediators. On physical search they found cash of Rs.i500/- and on search of their bike they found two bottles along with one small tin of Hash oii at the instance of P.Naresh Reddy, found four small tins of Hash oil from the possession of Chandra Sekhar. Later recorded the confession statement of accused in the presence of Gazetted officer. In their confession, they stated that they brought from one Krishna and that they are partners. They also confessed that they used to procure Hash oil for lower price from peddler Krishna for selling. It is also stated that they used to contact over phones, regular whatsap, telegram, and other social networks. On instructions of Chandrasekhar lhey tried to deliver the Hash oil at isolated place of Druva Enclave. The said Chandrasekhar reached the spot to collect the Hash oil and at around 20.10 hours they alt met at Druva Enclave and while Naresh Reddy is about to deliver, the police interrupted them and caught hold them. Basing on the said contents, the police registered the case, investigated and filed charge sheet. 3 i

3. I-Ierzrr,l Sr-i T.padyrrmna Kumar Reddy, lear re,l Senior Counscl i:p,pearing for Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, lear.r..d counsel for the p(,tit.rlers and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assis trr t public ProsecuL,:r- ,,r I tearing for the respondent.

4. 'I'he contention of learned counsel for the perrti rners is that pur-li.;lu.tr_,nt for consumption of any Nzlrco irt lrug or psy('horr,,pir. s11ly51rn"e is punishable under Secri,,,r 2 . oi thc NDPS Act. l,1rc petitioners were not found in poss< ssrol nor they wcrt: in.,-r,l,,ed in sourcing of any prohibitccl tran: )tlc Crllg or psychotroprc rh.ug and they were implicated in this cr.r:;e rnlv on the basis ol c c r fession statement of A.3 which is not ,,rr Lr issible. The samc u as olsgpygd by the Hon,ble Supreme Cou-r in Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamilnadul. He further col'rlr,r.de cl Lhat though pl'r,, 1,,. rf the petitioners urere seized, the siin.l e \\..re ,', ot sen t to I'SL rrr; lo how these petilioners had colttactr d A. 1 to A.4. No blo, r<l s amples were taken from the petitroner s to prove that the1.\\'ero lr the l-rabit of consuming Narcotic druq:, From a bare rc:rdi,p1 r:f FIR and charge sheet, it is seer: th.t 1l er.e is no evidence ltr,t ibrth by the prosecution apart from s.:t zir g ce 11 phones thert tltr r have committed the offence. He reli::rl c n Lhe ' (2O21) 4 SC,: I I I I I I I I l I l 4 (1': order of this Court in Crl.P.No. 1 1743 of 2023 wherein this Court quashed the proceedings against the consumers. He further contended that except recovering cell phones from the petitioners there is no other material seized from them. As such, prayed the court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistanl Public Prosecutor would submit that in the confession statement of A.3, it is clearly stated that drugs were supplied regularly to the petitioners. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss this petition

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both counsel and material placed on record, it is seen that there are clear allegations against these petitioners that they are the consumers of Narcotic drugs and A.3 used to supply hash oil and selling the same to these petitioners. However, the investigating officer has not collected the evidence to connect these petiLioners with the offence except the statement of co- accused. Though the investigating ofhcer coliected cell phones of these petitioners to show that A.3 called these petitioners, no call data is hled and the cell phones were not sent to FSL. Except the confession statement of co accused there is no other 5 evidencc c,rl 1. )ctcd by the investigating office:. I r sin'rilar circumsl:rn:r:: thc Apex Courl in Surinder Kumar Klrranna Vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelliger.rce2, in paragrap'-r 'rl,r r.l.-l ar-rd 14 observed as under : "13. lr trc l)resent case it is accepted that apart fro n tle aforcs ri,l it.ltements of co-accused there is nr) nlrll trii -L sr.Lggcstin 3 involvement of the appellant in the crirn,r r-r questir)n. f , e are thus left with only one piece of milterial thi t is the (c'rfussional statements of the co-accused ers :itrtel abo.. e. ()r hc touchstone of law laid dciwn b1' this C ourt I uc I a conles;s . n.rl statement of a co-accused cannot 1)\' itse l te taken ar a slrbstantivc piece oI evidence against alrother c( acr:rrscd : r (l can at best be used or utilised in or(ler t(r enl asslrfarnc, o the court.

14. In th' al)scnce of any substantive evidence it l\orrlL L-- inapplopr i:Lrc to base the conviction of the appellant purcl, o I th( sra (rrcnts of co accused. The appellant is ther(lbrl enriLle,l t ) be acquitted of the charges levelled against .tirr. W., tlrer, lrri, accept this appeal, set aside the order; tI cori,,,ic:ior ar)d sentence and acquit the appellant 't-it: appr:lLrrt r;hrLll be released forthwith unless his cusL(,d\ rJ reqlrr-,:d r r r:onnection u'ith any other offence."

7. Fult.lrer n Tofan Singh's Case a1so, [he Hr>n'b e Sllprcme Court I'rclcl tl.Lrrt sole confession slatement of co-accusr:cl cannot be a basi,., l,r' conviction. In the case on i'ranrl also the investigatinq r,lllcer has not collected any evidence to c 6r-r,-,.., the se petrtiorrt rs rvith the crime except the confession r,ta lement of A.3. Ne::.t r,r rhe cell phones of these petitioners wer-c ient to the FSL nol t1 cir blood samples was collected to provc r-h lt they I , .2 (2O18) E Srrlrr.r rr ( ourt Cases 271 I 6 I consumed any of the alleged narcotic drugs. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in the above judgment, basing on the confession statement of A.3 without any corroborative evidence, petitioners cannot be held liable. As such, continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of 1aw. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 8 Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.NDPS.No.l2 of 2023 on the hle of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, are hereby quashed Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI TY REGISTRAR E S TION OFFICER To, 1 . The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Jud ge at Nam lly 2. The Station House Officer, Bollarum police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the public prosecutor State of Telangana, High Court Buildings 4. One CC to Sri T. S. Anirudh Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad[OUT] PlpiPSL \r i I I I l VA(;A'TION COURT r TA;. a t 'J (_) .J $ it Jtllt M (, 7 Z r) -ir /!. {- HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER CRLP.No.6515 of 2024 ALLOWING T'HE CRL.P. l- Y II 5