ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 (here-in-after referred to as “the Code”) has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of the First Information Report (FIR) registered vide Crime No.79/2021 at Police Station Javad, District Neemuch for offences punishable under sections 8(c), 15(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), the charge-sheet filed arising out of the aforesaid FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings pending before Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Javad, District Neemuch in Sessions Trial No.25/2021.

2. Facts of the case are that on 23.02.2021 acting upon a secret information the Sub Inspector of Outpost Nayagaon, Police Station Javad, District Neemuch intercepted a truck bearing registration No.PB65-8W-0664 and recovered total 160 Kg. of contraband poppy straw from possession of co-accused Mandeep Singh. Upon his arrest his disclosure statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded in which he stated that the petitioner had loaded the contraband in the truck for transportation. The CDR information of mobile numbers of the co-accused and that of the petitioner were also collected by the Police from which it was revealed that they had been in constant touch. The Bank Account statement of the petitioner was also seized from which it appeared that co-accused have made deposit in his Bank account. On the basis of the aforesaid the petitioner has been implicated for the present offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the memos so prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused and that of the petitioner are of no avail to the prosecution in absence of any other tangible material available on record. He has further submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid memos under section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly reveals that the petitioner has been arraigned in the present case only on their basis which cannot be used in any manner to convict him under the aforesaid Sections in which charge-sheet has been filed. It is also submitted that the CDR of mobile phones of the petitioner and the co-accused is wholly insignificant and does not connect the petitioner with the present crime. It is further submitted that mere deposit of certain sum in the account of the petitioner by the coaccused also cannot lead to any inference that such deposit was only towards participation of the petitioner in transportation of the recovered contraband. It is hence submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Bhupendra v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No.5563/2017 decided by order dated 29.4.2022, Dilip Kumar v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No.2748/2022 decided on 12.4.2022, Mohar Singh v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No.41528/2021 decided on 28.6.2022 and similar other decisions.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference is made out. It is submitted that not only the memorandum of co-accused and his own memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act are available against the petitioner, but there are call details also between both of them from which it is apparent that they have been in constant touch throughout the relevant time and even prior thereto. Several deposits have been made by co accused in the Bank Account of the petitioner. There is hence sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and proceedings against him do not deserve to be quashed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary.

6. It is true that memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused and the petitioner by themselves cannot be used against the petitioner for his conviction. However, that is not the sole material available against the petitioner. From the case diary it is apparent that t