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.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashing the FIR No.241/2021, dated 30.06.2021 registered at Police Station – Suvasara, District – Mandsaur and the final charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto which are in respect of offence punishable under Sections 8 /15, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. As per the prosecution, on 30.06.2021, on receipt of a secret information the co-accused Kherajram was apprehended while he was traveling from Gandhi Sagar to Garoth Shamgarh on Mandsaur highway and total 250 quintal of poppy straw was recovered from his possession which was being transported b y him in a Truck bearing registration No.RJ-14-GC-9893 in 125 bags. Thereafter, his memorandum under Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT was recorded, in which he stated that the petitioner and other co-accused had approached him for the purpose of transportation of the contraband. On the basis of the said memorandum the petitioner has been implicated for the present offence and the charge-sheet has been filed against him before the Court concerned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He was neither present on the spot nor was any contraband recovered from his possession. The petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. His implication is only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused person recorded under Section 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT in which he deposed that petitioner and other co-accused had approached him for the purpose of transportation of the contraband. However, no fact as such could be discovered on the basis of the aforesaid statement therefore there is no legally admissible evidence within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT amounting to discovery of fact. Apart from this, there is no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the present crime. It is hence submitted that the FIR against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the impugned FIR and has prayed for rejection of the petition submitting that there is sufficient material available on record against the petitioner.

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

6. From perusal of the material available on record, it appears that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner. Neither is he the owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was being transported nor was he present in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. He was not apprehended from the spot. He has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT in which he deposed that the petitioner and other co-accused had approached him for the purpose of transportation of the contraband. The call details available on record are not in respect of the petitioner hence there is nothing to demonstrate that he has been in contact with the other co- accused. No recovery of any phone or SIM card has been made from the petitioner. None of the co- accused have stated that they were in contact with the petitioner on the mobile number as has been alleged by the prosecution.

7. Recently, this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Vs. State of M.P. , M.Cr.C. No. 2748/2022 decided on 12.04.2022 has held in paragraph No.15 to 18 as under:-

“15. A close scrutiny of the charge sheet reveals that apart from the aforesaid memo and the bank stat