Back
PRANAY VERMA
Kailash – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
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
The court emphasized the necessity of tangible evidence in criminal cases, ruling that confessions of co-accused cannot solely support a charge without independent corroboration.
The main legal point established is that the absence of evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence, combined with the lack of recovery from the accused, can justify the quashment of FIR....
A co-accused's confession cannot solely support a conviction without corroborating evidence, as per the principles of admissibility under the Evidence Act.
Confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in trial, and CDR evidence alone does not suffice for conviction without recovery of contraband from the accused.
A memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be the sole basis for prosecution; corroborative evidence is necessary to establish a connection to the offense.
The need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges.
Confessional statements to police are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, impacting the sufficiency of evidence for drug-related charges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
