ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is preferred by applicant for quashment of charge-sheet arising out of FIR bearing crime No.910/2021 for the offence under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 registered at Police Station Banganga, Indore and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.7.2021 police got a discrete information with regard to a vehicle, which was carrying alleged liquor. Acting upon the said information, police party reached on the spot and intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09-GG-6674 at Super Corridor and during the search, recovered 468 bulk litres illicit liquor from the possession of coaccused Narendra Singh and Indrajeet Singh. On the basis of memorandum given by co-accused, present applicant has been implicated as a accused in this case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter. His name neither mentioned in the secret information nor in the FIR. During the investigation, not a single piece of evidence has been produced by the prosecution, which shows the guilt or involvement of the applicant in the instant matter. Neither any liquor was recovered from the possession of present applicant and nor any vehicle or property belonged to the present applicant. Applicant has been implicated only on the basis of memorandum under section 27 of Evidence Act, but in absence of any recovery, it is not to be considered as admissible piece of evidence. No prima facie case is made out against the present applicant. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays that impugned chargesheet, FIR bearing Crime No.910/2021 and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Privy Council in a Landmark Judgment o f Pulukuri Kottayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 P.C. 67 and co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case Narendra Kumar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh order dated 15.3.2019 passed in CRR No.341/2019, Bhanwar Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh order dated 20.1.2023 in MCRC No.17232/2022, Rahul @ Abhishek Rathore v. The State of M.P. order dated 5.9.2022 in MCRC No.35272/2021 and Deepak Patil v. The State of M.P. order dated 25.1.2024 passed in MCRC No.25743/2023.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is prima facie evidence available on record against the applicant and no case is made out for any interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the applicant is neither named in the secret information nor in the FIR. No contraband has been recovered from his possession. Neither he is the owner of the said vehicle nor he was present in the vehicle at the time of alleged incident. He was not apprehended from the spot. Co-accused Narendra Singh in his discovery statement under section 27 of Evidence Act mentioned that present applicant Sonu has telephoned him, but no mobile phone has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Narendra Singh or from the possession of applicant. Even no call details have been provided by the prosecution. No liquor was recovered from the possession of present applicant. Witness Constable Heeramani Mishra, Constable Rajeev Yadav, Constable Malaram Singh, Head Constable Shailendra Singh Meena, Constable Raju Dixit, Constable Trilochan Bhuwan did not disclose the mane of the present applicant regarding the aforementioned offence. Applicant was implicated in the instant case only on the basis of disclosure statement given by the co-accused Narendra Singh, in which he stated that the liquor belonged to the applicant Sonu. The memorandum of the c