IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime No. 86 of 2020, under sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 at Police Station Hatod, District Indore as also the subsequent proceedings.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be the co-accused in the aforesaid case wherein it is alleged that on 7-4-2020, other three co-accused persons namely Jaygiri, Pankaj and Sunit @ Luccky were apprehended on a black Activa scooter and from their possession, 125 bulk litters of unauthorized liquor was seized. In their memos prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the said accused persons named the present petitioner as the person from whom they had procured the liquor and thus, the present petitioner was also arrested and is being tried in the aforesaid case.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the case only on the basis of a memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and there is no other material available on record to connect him with the offence. Hence, it is submitted that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be discharged from the charges levelled against him.

5. Counsel for the respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, however, it is not denied that apart from the aforesaid memos prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has not collected any other evidence which may tie the petitioner with the offence.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From the record, it is found that the date of incident is 7-4-2020, on which date, the main accused Jaygiri, Pankaj and Sunit @ Luccky were apprehended by the police Hatod, District Indore along with 125 bulk litres of unauthorized liquor and the aforesaid accused persons in their memos prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act informed that the aforesaid liquor was procured by them from the present petitioner. The charge sheet also reveals that there is no other document available on record to connect the petitioner with the offence and since the memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be read in evidence in respect of overt act of any other accused person, this Court is of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served to try the petitioner for the charges framed against him as the same would only result in an exercise in futility as the prosecution has miserably failed to collect any evidence against the petitioner except the memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

8. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No. 86 of 2020, under sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 against the petitioner at Police Station Hatod, District Indore as also the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the aforementioned charges. All the subsequent proceedings relating to aforementioned crime number registered against the petitioner are also quashed.

Petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.