BAGDI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No. 74/2014 registered at Police Station GRP, Kota for the offence under Sec. 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act ") to his extent and also the investigation and any other proceedings pending against him under the aforesaid FIR.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against co-accused one Shri Samrath son of Shri Ram Lakhan on 09.04.2014 on the premise that some narcotic drug was recovered from his possession without any valid licence or permit. It is to be noted that during the course of recovery of the narcotic drug from the possession of the co-accused or at the time of registration of FIR, name of the petitioner did not surface in any manner showing his involvement in the said recovery. During the course of investigation, interrogation being made from the co-accused-Shri Samrath about the source from which the recovered narcotic drug was procured by him, it was disclosed by the co-accused to the investigating officer that it was procured by him from petitioner and his brother Shri Shiv Narayan. On the basis of such information Shri Shiv Narayan was arrested, but petitioner could not be arrested till date. Thereafter, charge-sheet for offence under Sec. 8/21 of the Act was filed against Shri Samrath and for the offence under Sec. 8/21 read with Sec. 8/29 of the Act against Shri Shiv Narayan, whereas investigation was kept pending against petitioner under Sec. 173(8) Crimial P.C. on the ground that he has not been arrested. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was declared absconder by the trial Court and proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Crimial P.C. has also commenced against him. In the aforesaid circumstances, present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in any capacity nor any role was attributed against him in any manner in the incident and he has been arrayed as accused only on the basis of information provided by co-accused-Shri Samrath on his interrogation by the investigating officer during the course of investigation to the effect that the recovered narcotic drug was procured by him from petitioner and his brother-Shri Shiv Narayan and there is no other evidence except the alleged statement of co-accused. It was further submitted that even after the alleged statement of co-accused till date no further evidence has been collected even prima facie showing involvement of the petitioner in the said incident of he was having any connection with the recovery effected from the possession of co-accused Shri Samrath. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that admission/confession made by an accused during the course of investigation to a police officer is not admissible in evidence against a co-accused in absence of corroborative evidence and in the present case even if petitioner faces trial, there is no likelihood of his conviction in absence of any admissible evidence and it would be a futile exercise to conduct trial against the petitioner. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court must exercise discretion conferred upon it under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.