Judgment · High Court

Heard.

ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consentof learned counsel for the parties.

The present applications are preferred by theapplicants for quashing of the First Information Report inconnection with crime No.308/2025 registered with the non-applicant No.2-Police Station under Sections 123, 223, 274 and275 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,‘BNS’) read with Section 3(5) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and Rules 2011. The crime is registered onthe basis of report lodged by PSI Mulchand ChandrabhanjiBhamburkar on an allegation that on 15.04.2025 he received asecrete information that one container proceeding from Nagpur to 19 APL 722.25+ another.odt 3 Amravati bearing No.RJ 11GC 0352 is transporting the contraband articles like scented pan masala and scented tobacco andtherefore, he alongwith other raiding party workers interceptedsaid container. On inception of the said truck the driver of thetruck disclosed that they are transporting the toys, school bagsand foot wears. But on inspection of the said truck, the contraband articles like scented pan masala and scented tobacco like arefound worth of Rs.71,70,000/-. The said stock was immediatelyseized in presence of the panchas. On the basis of the said reportpolice have registered crime against the driver of the said trucknamely Gulab Sarman Aherwar. During interrogation with thedriver of the said truck, the names of the present applicants arerevealed as the purchaser of the said stock and therefore thepresent applicants are arrayed as an accused. After registration ofthe crime, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements ofthe relevant witnesses. During investigation various statements arerecorded which are placed on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants whosubmitted that the case of the prosecution is that the informantwho is the police officer received a secrete information and on the 19 APL 722.25+ another.odt 4 basis of the said secrete information, he has intercepted the truckand the driver of the truck was taken in the custody as well as thestock was also seized from the other co-accused. On the basis ofthe statement of co-accused the offence came to be registeredagainst the present applicants in the matter.

He further submitted that except the statement of theco-accused there is absolutely no material to show thatthe applicants were the proposed purchasers of the said stock. Soon the basis of the statement of the co-accused, he cannot beprosecuted in the matter.

Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same bystating that the material seized from the main accused is huge inamount and there are criminal antecedents of similar natureagainst the present applicants. After investigation the involvementof the present applicants is revealed and therefore, a prima-faciecase is made out against the applicants. In view of thatapplications deserve to be rejected.

After considering the rival submissions of both theparties and on perusal of the investigation papers, which areplaced on record for perusal, it is clear that truck bearing 19 APL 722.25+ another.odt 5 No.RJ11GC0352 was intercepted on the basis of the secreteinformation and the contraband articles are seized at the instanceof the co-accused. There is allegation that present applicants arethe proposed purchasers but except the bare statement of the co-accused, who is the truck driver, there is absolutely no materialcollected during the investigation to show the involvement of thepresent applicants that they are proposed purchasers. It is wellsettled position of law that on the statement of the co-accused, nooffence can be registered against the another accused. In thepresent case though it is stated by the learned APP that on thebasis of the statement of the co-accused, the offence is registeredbut entire charge-sheet nowhere demonstrated that what othermaterial has been collected from the applicants. The prosecutionfurther could not show that the applicants are the proposedpurchasers of the said contraband articles. As such, in absence ofany material on record against the applicants prosecuting underthe offences registered against them would be an abuse of theprocess of law. In view of that the applications deserve to beallowed.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- 19 APL 722.25+ another.odt 6 ORDER(i)The Criminal Applications Nos.722/2025 and1081/2025 are allowed. (ii) The FIR in connection with crime No.308/2025registered under Sections Sections 123, 223, 274 and 275 ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 3(5) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standard Act,2006 and Rules 2011 is quashed and set aside to the extentof applicant Nos.1- Laxman @ Kalu Jethanand Lalwani and2- Manoj @ Nandlal Lalwani and Mohammed FirozMohammad Saddik Punjani.