SHASHIKANTH CHERLA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is accused No.5 and is seeking quashing of the proceedings against him in SC.NDPS No.36 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad.

(2.) Brief facts leading to registration of the subject case against the petitioner herein are that the police, on credible information that two persons are trying to sell prohibited narcotic drugs in front of Ohris Hotel, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, intercepted the said persons and seized certain materials, i.e., narcotic drugs from them and arrested them. In the meantime, another person by name Abhinav Mahender, who is accused No.3 came to the spot in a car and he was also intercepted and arrested. All the three are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.3 had given a confessional statement that accused Nos.4 and 5 used to search internet for drugs by using Tor browser and used to purchase MDMA drug and sell the same to accused No.1 and other needy customers on higher rates. On the basis of the said information, accused No.4 was arrested and all the accused, i.e., accused Nos.1 to 4 were produced before the Court. Accused No.5 was shown as absconding. However, on 13/11/2017, the petitioner, i.e., accused No.5 was arrested and one I-phone 5 which was allegedly used by the petitioner for commission of the alleged offence was also seized from him and accordingly, the charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the case only on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of accused No.3. He submitted that though the phone of the petitioner has been seized, the same was not sent to FSL report on the phone and that there is no basis, whatsoever, mentioned in the charge sheet for confirming that the petitioner is involved in the said offence. He therefore sought quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner. In support of his contention that only on the basis of the confession of a co-accused, the criminal case against the petitioner is not maintainable, he placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: