The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 5ZA of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash in Cr.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad against the accused No.1 3. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 in Cr.No.10 of 2O22 on the file of the Punjagutta Police Station, 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 K S Naga Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following Order : 7 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PIITITION No.l0l01 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') (for short'BNSS') by the petitioner/accused No.l3 to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No. l0 of 2022 on the file of P.S.Punjagutta. The offences alleged against him are under Section 8 (c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (c) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the'NDPS Act) and Secrion 14 (a) (b) of the Foreigners Act,1946 (for short, the Act,1946).

2. The allegations against the petitioner/accused No.13 are that the Additional [nspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station lodged a complaint stating that on 06.01 .2022 at about 0600 hours, he received information from Sub-lnspector of Police that two persons were in possession of huge quantity of Narcotic substance Drug i.e., Cocaine and trying to sell the same to needy people near GVK Mall, Punjagutta. After obtaining permission to verif, the veracity of information, they along with mediators and staff of p.S. punjagutta went to the said plaoe and at about 6.45 hours found trvo persons in 2 suspicious circumstances, they were caught and recovered 83 small sachets from them which were found to be Narcotic substance narnely Cocaine. During enquiry it was revealed that the main accused Tony, who is A.1 alleged to be an intemational drug peddler and others are absconding. Basing on the said information, a case in Cr.No.l0 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner/accused No.13 for the said offences. 3 Fleard Sri K.S.Naga Narsimha, learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.l3 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l - State. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.13 is that petitioner was charged under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, wherein it was stated that the arrested accused No. I committed the offence which is liable to be punished under Section 8 (c) r/w.20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act and the accused Nos.l0 to 22 committed the offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The punishment for the said offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.20,000/- or with both. 7 3

5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire material is against accused No.3. The remand report and FIR do not disclose any prima-facie case against the petitioner/ accused No.l3 for the alleged offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. There is no material to frame any charge under Section2T of the NDPS Act. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither arrested at the site nor any contraband was seized from him. The only witnesses in the present case are the police officers and panchas and there is no incriminating material seized from the petitioner, except his mobile phone. Earlier petitioners and others approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail vide Crl.p.No.l452 of 2022 and the same was allowed.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the similar circumstances, the accused No. 15 in this crime filed Crl.P.No.5502 of 2023 seeking quashing of the proceedings in Cr.No.l0 of 2022 and this Court allowed the said petition quashing the same and the petitioner herein also stand on the same footing. 7. On the other hand learned Assistant public prosecutor vehemently opposed for quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.l0 of 4 2022 stating thar investigation is still pending and porice have to collect the evidence to file charge sheet. A.1 is an international drug peddler and petitioner is addicted to consume cocaine. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no record to show that petitioner/accused No.13 is involved in this crime. The petitioner/accused No. l3 was neither arrested at the site nor was any contraband seized from them. Moreover, att the witnesses including panch witnesses in this case were oflicial witnesses.

9. As seen from the records, the names of petitioner/accused No. l3 was not found in the FIR, whereas in the remand report it is mentioned that A. I to A.3 came to Hyderabad to sell small quantity of contraband to the needy people. Further, the record also reveals that no incriminating material is seized from the petitioner/accused No.13 except mobile phone, which has been seized but the same has been handed over to him.

10. It is the specific contention ofprosecution that the petitioner has made confession before the police on 20.01 .2022 at about 09.30 hours, admitting his guilt of purchasing the said narcotic substance / i1..!_:... I '7 from accused No.l and consuming it. The confession made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law, unless said confession led to recovery of any incriminating material objects ll. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofon Singh u. State of Tamilnadut wherein it was held that the confessional statements recoded under section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. However, there is no medical record to show that the petitioner/accused No.l3 has consumed any narcotic substance. Except the conlessional statement of the petitioner/accused No.l3, there is no material on record to show that he has purchased the narcotic substance or consumed it. Further, the punishment for the offence under Section 27 of the I I NDPS Act is one year and the alleged FIR was registered on

06.01 .2022 and till date no charge sheet is fi[ed. Even as per Section 468(2) (b) of Cr.P.C., if the final report is not filed uithin a period of one year, it is deemed to be barred by limitation. Therefore, the benefit has to be given to the petitioner/accused No.13. '(zozr)c scc r 6 12' In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case' this court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. r 3 13. Accordingry, this crirninal petition is allowed and rhe proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No. l3 in crime No. l0 of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad, registered flor the offences under Section g(c) r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDpS Act and Section la (a) (b) of the Act, 1946, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magiskate at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Paniagutta PS, Hyderabad District 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri K S Naga Narasimha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VA/gh s HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 $. l HE !f, o. J J o I JAI zo25 2 * sp4 TC HEo * ORDER CRLP.No.I0101 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP cgq''' $*- -A-W