Telangana High Court
Saligommula Mahendra Adityanath vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12107 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.124 of 2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act").
2. Heard the submissions of Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer and is facing false allegations and that he is a student and there is no seizure from the petitioner herein and hence, continuation of proceedings would spoil the career of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel, in support of his 2 submissions, relied upon the decision of this Court in Dhandu Surya Sumanth Reddy v. State of Telangana 1.
4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is accused No.5 and is alleged to be a purchaser and a consumer and that accused Nos.1 to 3 were remanded to judicial custody and that they purchased 2 kgs. of Ganja and packed ganja into small packets of 20 grams each and sold the said packets to their friends and one of them is the present petitioner. Therefore, she submitted that there is ample material collected against the petitioner during the course of investigation and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Perused the record.
6. The petitioner herein is facing allegations for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 27 of the NDPS Act. The allegations point out that the petitioner herein is a consumer and that he used to purchase ganja from accused Nos.1 to 3.
1 2025 (1) ALT (Crl.) 373 (T.S.) 3
7. In Dhandu Surya Sumanth Reddy's case (supra), the only witnesses were the Police Officers and panchas and there is no incriminating material seized from the petitioner therein, except his mobile phone. Thus, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu 2, wherein it was held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, it was held that there is no medical record to show that the petitioner-accused therein has consumed any Narcotic Substance and that except the confessional statement of petitioner, there is no material on record to show that he has purchased Narcotic Substance or consumed it. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner therein were quashed.
8. In the present case also there is no seizure of Narcotic Substance from the petitioner-accused No.5 and even as per the charge sheet, the offence charged against the petitioner-accused No.5 is under Section 27 of the NDPS Act and the recitals point out that he is a consumer. It is further borne out by record that he was not subjected to any medical examination and no such report is found in the record.
2 (2021) 4 SCC 1 4
9. In view of the above held discussion and in light of the above cited decision, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.124 of 2024 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 12.11.2025 ds