2025 Supreme(Gau) 1267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Ikbal Bahar Hussain S/o Abdul Noor - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Another - Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 147 of 2024
Decided On : 30-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : H.R. Choudhury, A.S. Prodhani, S. Talukdar
The court upheld the Special Court's authority to take cognizance of narcotics-related offences based on sufficient evidence, affirming that Section 482 of CrPC is to be used sparingly.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482 and 401 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Cognizance and quashing of proceedings - Challenge to Special Court’s order taking cognizance of charges against the petitioner for offences under NDPS Act was dismissed as the Court found sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. The validity of the final report and the necessary procedures were discussed. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction and Powers of the Special Court - The Special Court is empowered to take cognizance of offences based on available incriminating materials, even if the final report by the investigating officer recommends otherwise. Jurisdiction upheld in light of the contrary solicitor's absence and the existence of incriminating evidence. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the cognizance taken for offences under the NDPS Act relating to the possession of contraband found in an auto-rickshaw parked in his garage, asserting no incriminating evidence was available against him. (Paras 2, 6, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Special Court acted within its authority to reject the final report and proceed against the petitioner, based on substantial incriminating evidence in the case record. (Paras 8, 14)
Issues: Whether the Special Court could take cognizance of the offences without hearing the informant and whether there were sufficient incriminating circumstances against the petitioner. (Paras 6, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Special Court could accept the incriminating materials despite the inconclusive final report and emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC should only be used in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 9, 14)
Result: Criminal petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inherent powers allow intervention when procedural fairness is compromised. (Para 1) |
| 2. quashing of proceedings based on fir (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. challenge on cognizance and incriminating evidence (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's authority to accept testimony from fir (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. evidence requirements under section 207, crpc (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. status of evidence found during investigation (Para 11 , 13) |
| 7. dismissal of unmerited petition (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam.
2. The instant criminal petition is preferred seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 read with Section 401 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘Code’] for setting aside and quashing of the proceedings of Special [NDPS] Case no. 05/2015, presently pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj including an Order dated 02.07.2022 whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 22 [c]/29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985. By the Order dated 02.07.2022, the learned Special Court after taking cognizance of the afore-stated offences, issued processes against three accused persons, [1] Massadar Ali; [2] Basir Ahmed and [3] Ikbal Bahar Hussain [the petitioner] to appear in the proceedings of Special [NDPS] Case No. 05/2015.
3. It is stated at the Bar that in the meantime, two accused persons, namely, Massadar Ali and Basir Ahmed have expired. By an Order dated 02.08.2022, the learned Special Court receiving that since Basir Ahmed had expired on 14.07.2020, has observed that the case against him stood abated. The learned Special Court by another Order dated 29.04.2023 observing that Massadar Ali had expired on 09.09.2022, had held that the case against him stood abated. As a result of abatement of proceedings of the case against the said two accused persons, it is the petitioner who is the sole remaining accused to face the proceedings of Special [NDPS] Case no. 05/2015.
3.1 The case, Special [NDPS] Case No. 05/2015 arose out of Karimganj Police Station Case no. 285/2015. The FIR in connection with Karimganj Police Station Case no. 285/2015 was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the then In-Charge, Girishganj Out Post. In the FIR, which was in reference to Girishganj Out Post General Diary Entry no. 134 dated 11.04.2015, the informant had inter-alia stated that on receipt of an information regarding keeping of suspected articles in a Garage at Tillabazar area, a team of Police personnel along with BSF personnel immediately rushed to the place to search the Garage. On opening the Garage, an Auto-Rickshaw bearing registration no. AS-10/C-4224 was found. When a search made inside the Auto Rickshaw, 397 nos. of Genosedyl bottles were found inside. The bottles were accordingly, seized by preparing a Seizure List in presence of witnesses.
4. In the afore-stated FIR, no person was named as involved behind keeping 397 bottles of Genosedyl inside the Auto Rickshaw. The investigation was carried out after registration of the case. The I.O. of the case had, on 30.09.2019, submitted a Final Report stating inter-alia that there was no possibility of identification of the accused in the near future. The I.O. had observed that as per the Forensic Test Report, the test on the seized items was positive. In the Charge-Sheet, the I.O. had stated that the Auto-Rickshaw owner, Basir Uddin and the Garage owner, Massadar Ali were implicated on the basis of the statements of the witnesses.
5. When the Final Report was submitted before the learned Special Court, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that if the materials in the case diary were perused, considerable incriminating materials would be found. Notice was thereafter, sent to the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station for a hearing on