Financing illicit drug trafficking is a distinct and substantive offence under Section 27(A) of the NDPS Act, not requiring physical possession of contraband or presence at the scene, and proceedings cannot be quashed when specific and corroborated allegations of such involvement exist.

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026 on the file of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(A) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’).

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the registration of F.I.R.No.08/2026 on the file of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District, insofar as it implicates the Petitioner, is wholly unsustainable in law and amounts to a manifest abuse of process. The substratum of the prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose any overt act or participation attributable to the Petitioner which would attract the penal provisions of Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a), 27(A) read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’. The Petitioner is neither alleged to have been present at the scene of offence nor shown to be in conscious possession of contraband.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has been roped in merely on the basis of conjecture and suspicion, being described as a “friend” of Accused Nos.1 to 4. Such vague and omnibus allegations, bereft of any material particulars, cannot form the foundation of criminal liability under the stringent provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’.

5. The allegations of financial assistance attributed to the Petitioner are equally untenable. The prosecution has not produced a single document, transaction record, or witness statement to substantiate that the Petitioner financed or facilitated the procurement of ganja. In the absence of any iota of evidence, the invocation of Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’ against the Petitioner is wholly misconceived. The Petitioner is an air-conditioner mechanic by profession, with no antecedents or criminal history, and his implication is a clear case of malice and overreach.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submits that the seizure proceedings themselves reveal that contraband was recovered only from Accused Nos.1 to 7, with no recovery whatsoever from the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s name finds mention only in the narrative of the police report without any corroborative material. It is settled law that mere association or acquaintance with principal offenders does not ipso facto attract criminal liability under ‘the NDPS Act’. The continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner would therefore result in irreparable hardship and grave miscarriage of justice and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.

7. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations contained in F.I.R.No.08/2026 and the subsequent investigation reveal a well-structured and organized criminal enterprise under ‘the NDPS Act’. The record demonstrates that Accused Nos.1 to 4, in active conspiracy with Accused Nos.8 and 9, procured contraband from the Agency area of Alluri Sitaramaraju District, transported the same to Chilakaluripet, and repacked it into smaller sachets for local sale. The seizure of 1.36 kilograms of ganja from Accused Nos.1 to 4, coupled with the recovery of cash proceeds, mobile phones used for digital transactions, and the