Judgment · High Court · 2025

Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. S.S. Jachak, A.P.P. for the Non-applicants/State. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, AND M.M. NERLIKAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2025. Heard for the time being.

The applicants are chargesheeted in Crime No. 0299/2022 dated 01/04/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 26(2)(i), 27(3)(e), 30(2)(a) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, registered with Police Station Arni, Taluka Arni and District Yavatmal.

The prayer is restricted for applicant no.3. In other words, the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 are not pressing for order. As such, applicant no.1 is a driver and applicant no.2 is a cleaner, who were allegedly transporting pan masala and scented tobacco of various brands from Arni To Digras. The manufacturer of these products is Vimal Pan Masala. 2 46-Cr.APL-56-2024 The Investigating Officer has not investigated the role of the manufacturer of the aforesaid pan masala and scented tobacco. The driver and cleaner, however, are blamed to have committed offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, so also, the Food Safety and Standards Act.

The applicant No.3 is said to be a supplier of these goods. He is made accused only on the basis of the statements of the other two applicants.

The arguments is that, except for the statement of co-accused, there is absolutely no evidence against the applicant no.3 of having supplied alleged goods.

In this context, we enquired with the learned A.P.P. and called upon her to point out the evidence collected against applicant no.3 for supplying the goods under question to which the learned A.P.P. submits that the contentions put forth by the applicant No.3 is correct. In other words, the learned A.P.P. submits that, except for the statement of co-accused, there is no evidence against applicant No.3.

It is well settled that the statement of co- accused, is otherwise, inadmissible in evidence, and the guilt cannot be established on the basis of such 3 46-Cr.APL-56-2024 statements. That being so, even if the charge-sheet is accepted to be true, no offence is made out against the applicant No.3.

Accordingly, we partly allow the application, i.e. qua applicant No.3 - Sheikh Mahebub Sheikh Sadik, in terms of prayer clause No.(ii) which reads as under:-

Further be pleased to quashed and set aside the charge sheet vide charge sheet No.136/2022 dated 20/7/2022 file before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arni, Distt. Yavatmal at Annexure-2 and also quashed the Criminal complaint vide Session case No.44/2022 pending on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, Distt. Yavatmal.

Disposed of in above terms. [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] [ANIL.L. PANSARE, J ] Piyush Mahajan