Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jankilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2017
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.24620/2017 (Jankilal vs. The State of M.P.)
M.Cr.C. No.24620/2017
(Jankilal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated: 20/12/2017
Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "The Code"), praying for quashment of First Information Report in Crime No. 65/2017, registered at Police Station-Kalukheda, Distt.-Ratlam registered for offences under Section 8/15, 25 & 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and all the consequent proceedings arising there from including charge-sheet in S.S.T. No.15/17.
02. Allegedly, on 25/04/2017, on the basis of secret information, police laid a trap in which vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 35 GA 0661 (Bolero Jeep), which was being driven by Bhanwarlal, was intercepted. On a search being carried out 1 quintal and 3.5 Kgs., of poppy straw was recovered from the vehicle. The same was seized, Bhanwarlal was also arrested and on interrogation being made, Bhanwarlal revealed that poppy straw in question was procured by him from one Ishwarlal and that he was going to deliver the same to petitioner-Jankilal. On the basis of this disclosure statement, 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24620/2017 (Jankilal vs. The State of M.P.) the petitioner was also taken into custody and a case was registered against him. On due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
03. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complicity of the petitioner is alleged solely on the basis of disclosure statement, said to have been made by Bhanwarlal. The further submission is that no fact, as such, has been discovered on the basis of this disclosure statement, therefore, the disclosure does not fall within the category of legal evidence within the meaning of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that there is no other connecting link against the petitioner with regard to the alleged offence, therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 8/15, 25 and 29 of 'The Act' amounts to sheer abuse of process of law, therefore, the FIR and the consequent charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in Crime No. 65/2017, Police Station-Kalukheda, Distt.-Ratlam deserves to be quashed.
04. Per contra, though the prayer for quashment is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, it is not disputed that complicity of the petitioner is alleged only on the basis of the disclosure statement said to have been made by Bhanwarlal purportedly under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further not a matter of dispute that no fact as such has been discovered on the basis of this disclosure statement.
05. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24620/2017 (Jankilal vs. The State of M.P.) perused the record.
06. The law is well settled that unless a fact is discovered on the basis of statement, made by the accused, the same is legally inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this connection, we can refer to the celebrated judgment of The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperior, AIR 1947 P.C. 67, wherein it has been held that unless there is discovery of fact, statement made u/S.27 of the Evidence Act has no evidentiary value. It has further been held that in a case, it can seldom happen that information leading to discovery of a fact can be made, the foundation of the prosecution case because it is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in the manner allowed by law.
07. Considered in the light of the aforesaid, in the present case, the accusation against the petitioner is based solely on the disclosure statement, said to have been made by Bhanwarlal, however, no fact as such has been discovered on the basis of the statement so made by Bhanwarlal and apart this there is no other material on record to connect the present petitioner with regard to the alleged offences, therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC Page 604, it is a fit case for quashment of the FIR.
08. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and First Information Report in Crime No. 65/2017, Police Station- Kalukheda, Distt.-Ratlam and all the consequent proceedings 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24620/2017 (Jankilal vs. The State of M.P.) arising there from including charge-sheet in S.S.T. No.15/17 pending before the Court of Special Judge (Narcotics), Jaora for offences u/S. 8/15, 25 & 29 of 'the Act' qua petitioner- Jankilal, are hereby quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi Sumati Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Jagadeesan 2.5.4.20=c924c30fdbbbe5bd3576e03ddd1b95d9 4f157e8aec842e0acdbeed50df87856b, cn=Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2017.12.22 12:02:34 +05'30'