The court upheld that prima facie evidence, including phone records and prior convictions, justifies proceeding with criminal charges despite the inadmissibility of co-accused confessions.

CAV ORDER

This petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . for quashing the criminal proceedings in Spl.Case No.64/2022 arising out of Crime No.33/2021 of Economic and Narcotic Crime Police Station, Mangaluru, now pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the suo moto complaint registered by the respondent Police on 29.06.2021 alleging that on the said day @ 8 A.M. they received credible information that a parcel is coming through courier service which contain narcotic drugs for the purpose of selling to the students and a vehicle bearing No. TN-74-AW-4970 was proceeding to receive the parcel. Accordingly, a search warrant has been obtained, the police officer along with the officials were found, the said car was parked in front of the post office, where the accused No.3 by name Meenu Rashmi sitting in the car and another person accused No.2 brought the card board box from the post office and kept inside the car. Immediately the police intercepted the car and on search and enquiry he has named as Ajmal- accused No.2 and inmate of the car is Rashmi-accused No.3, they seized the Narcotic drugs under the panchanama, as there is no license. The said lady is from Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu and on verification the parcel contained Hydro Weed Ganja measuring 1 k.g. 236 gram valued about 1,20,000/-. The police also seized mobile phone from the accused person and it is revealed by the accused No.2, the parcel was sent by the accused No.1 and he received the same for the purpose of selling. Then he has been arrested and based upon the voluntary statement, the accused No.1 also said to be arrested. On the basis of the voluntary statement that the accused No.2 said to be informed is taking the drugs for the purpose of handing over to the present petitioner -accused No.4 and accordingly names of the petitioners impleaded. He also obtained anticipatory bail from the High Court and subsequently he has moved the petition during the crime stage for quashing, which came to be dismissed and after filing of the charge sheet once again the petitioner is before this court.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the confession statement made by the accused No.2 that too in the subsequent confession statement, it was revealed the name of the petitioner, absolutely there is no connecting evidence placed by the police in the charge sheet. Even in the additional charge sheet they have stated that there is phone contact between the accused Nos.1 and 4 but the CDR does not reveals any phone belongs to the petitioner for having contacted to the accused No.1 and in the first confession statement given by the accused No.2 there is no name mentioned but in the second confession statement in the custody where he has named the accused. The confession statement made by the co-accused is not admissible in evidence. It is also contended that there is no offence committed by the petitioner. It is stated by the accused No.2 that he is going to give to the accused No.4/present petitioner and in turn they are going to sell. Still the offence is not committed by this petitioner. Therefore, there is no material placed on record to connect the accused with the crime. Hence, conducting the proceedings against this petitioner is abuse of process of law. Therefore prayed for quashing the same.

5. Per contra learned HCGP objected the petition contending that, in the additional charge sheet the police have collected phone numbers of accused Nos.1 and 2 and this petitioner for having contacted by them a day prior to the sending the parcel and seizer of the drugs. It is also reveals from the investigation this petitioner obtained the simcard of the another friend and used it for the purpose of contacting the accused No.1, the CDR also produced, phon