Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Shaik Bara Shahid vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
APHC010069632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1102/2026
Between:
1. SHAIK BARA SHAHID, S/O. SHAIK KHASIM, AGE 23 YEARS,R/O.
D.NO. 12-101B/1, RAHAMATH NAGAR, CHILAKALURIPET PALNADU
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE S.H.O.,
NADENDIA, PALNADU DISTRICTREP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, A.P., AMARAVATI
2. R VENKATESWARA RAO, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NADENDIA
P.S., PALNADU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the
Petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026 on the
file of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(A) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act‘).
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor.
3. Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the registration of F.I.R.No.08/2026 on the file of Nadendla Police
Station, Palnadu District, insofar as it implicates the Petitioner, is wholly
unsustainable in law and amounts to a manifest abuse of process. The
substratum of the prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not
disclose any overt act or participation attributable to the Petitioner which would
attract the penal provisions of Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a), 27(A) read with
Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act‘. The Petitioner is neither alleged to have been
present at the scene of offence nor shown to be in conscious possession of
contraband.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner
has been roped in merely on the basis of conjecture and suspicion, being
described as a “friend” of Accused Nos.1 to 4. Such vague and omnibus
3
allegations, bereft of any material particulars, cannot form the foundation of
criminal liability under the stringent provisions of ‘the NDPS Act‘.
5. The allegations of financial assistance attributed to the Petitioner are
equally untenable. The prosecution has not produced a single document,
transaction record, or witness statement to substantiate that the Petitioner
financed or facilitated the procurement of ganja. In the absence of any iota of
evidence, the invocation of Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act‘ against the
Petitioner is wholly misconceived. The Petitioner is an air-conditioner
mechanic by profession, with no antecedents or criminal history, and his
implication is a clear case of malice and overreach.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submits that the seizure
proceedings themselves reveal that contraband was recovered only from
Accused Nos.1 to 7, with no recovery whatsoever from the Petitioner. The
Petitioner’s name finds mention only in the narrative of the police report
without any corroborative material. It is settled law that mere association or
acquaintance with principal offenders does not ipso facto attract criminal
liability under ‘the NDPS Act‘. The continuation of proceedings against the
Petitioner would therefore result in irreparable hardship and grave miscarriage
of justice and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition.
7. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
allegations contained in F.I.R.No.08/2026 and the subsequent investigation
reveal a well‑structured and organized criminal enterprise under ‘the NDPS
Act‘. The record demonstrates that Accused Nos.1 to 4, in active conspiracy
4
with Accused Nos.8 and 9, procured contraband from the Agency area of Alluri
Sitaramaraju District, transported the same to Chilakaluripet, and repacked it
into smaller sachets for local sale. The seizure of 1.36 kilograms of ganja from
Accused Nos.1 to 4, coupled with the recovery of cash proceeds, mobile
phones used for digital transactions, and the Honda Activa scooter employed
for transportation, constitutes unimpeachable material evidence corroborating
the prosecution case.
8. It is further contended that the confessional statements of the accused,
recorded in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and mediators, were voluntary
and consistent, thereby lending credence to the prosecution narrative. The
accused themselves admitted to their roles in procurement, transportation,
and sale of ganja. The seizure proceedings were conducted in strict
compliance with statutory safeguards, including informing the accused of their
rights under ‘the NDPS Act‘, thereby eliminating any allegation of procedural
infirmity.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the activities of
the accused were not isolated acts of consumption but a deliberate and
profit‑oriented trafficking operation. By procuring ganja at cheaper rates and
selling it in small packets to habitual consumers, the accused facilitated easy
access to narcotic substances among vulnerable sections of society. Such
conduct squarely attracts the rigors of Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a), and 27(A)
read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act‘, which penalize possession, sale,
financing, and abetment of narcotic trafficking.
5
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor furthermore submits that the
gravity of the offence is heightened by the social consequences of the
accused’s actions. The organized distribution of ganja promotes addiction,
undermines public health, and destabilizes community welfare. The accused,
by targeting unemployed youth and daily wage earners, have deliberately
widened the circle of addiction and criminality. This Court cannot overlook the
deleterious impact of such activities on society at large.
11. It is further argued that the investigation has been conducted with
scrupulous adherence to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
regarding arrest, seizure, and remand. The material evidence, corroborative
witness statements, and voluntary confessions collectively establish a prima
facie case against the accused. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the
organized nature of the activity, and the societal harm caused, quashing the
proceedings is wholly untenable and deserves outright rejection.
12. The allegation against Accused No.8, Shaik Bara Shaheed, is that he, in
conspiracy with Accused No.9, provided financial support to Accused Nos.2 to
4 for the procurement of ganja from Chinturu in Alluri Sitaramaraju District.
Specifically, Accused No.8 is alleged to have advanced Rs.6,000/- towards
purchase and travel expenses, thereby enabling the procurement of 2
kilograms of ganja. Though not physically present at the scene of seizure,
Accused No.8’s role as financier and habitual consumer places him squarely
within the ambit of Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act‘, which criminalizes
financing and abetment of illicit traffic in narcotic substances. His involvement
6
is thus integral to the organized trafficking operation and cannot be trivialized
as mere friendship or association.
13. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble
Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of T.N 1 at
paragraph Nos.387 & 404 held as under:
“387. There can be no doubt that the mandatory provisions of the
NDPS Act to ensure fair trial of the accused must be enforced.
However, overemphasis on the principles of natural justice in drug-
trafficking cases can be a major hindrance to the apprehension of
offenders. In offences under the NDPS Act, substantial compliance
should be treated as sufficient for the procedural requirements,
because such offences adversely affect the entire society. The lives
of thousands of persons get ruined.
404. A confessional statement does not automatically result in the
conviction of an accused offender. Such statements have to be
tendered and proved in accordance with the law. The evidentiary
value of the statement which is confessional in nature has to be
weighed and assessed by the court at the trial.”
14. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Tofan Singh 1st supra, while
enunciating the law at paragraph Nos.387 and 404, held that although the
mandatory safeguards prescribed under ‘the NDPS Act‘, aimed at securing a
fair trial, are required to be duly observed, an excessively rigid or
hyper-technical application of the principles of natural justice in cases of
narcotic trafficking may seriously impede the effective apprehension and
prosecution of offenders, particularly having regard to the deleterious impact
of such offences on society at large, the Court further clarified that a
confessional statement, per se, does not ipso facto result in the conviction of
an accused, and that such statement must be lawfully tendered and proved,
with its evidentiary value being a matter for careful judicial evaluation and
determination by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.
1
(2021) 4 SCC 1
7
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ram Samujh 2 , at
paragraph No.7 it is held as under:
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is
required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind
that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two
persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are
instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number
of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious
effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the
society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they
would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in
intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit
involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to
punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the
adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union
Territory of Goa, (1990) 1 SCC 95 as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24)
“24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities
of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in
such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a
sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and
students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and
alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to
effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming
devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact
on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made
effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying
mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.””
16. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Ram Samujh 2nd supra, while
expounding the law at paragraph No.7, underscored the imperative necessity
of strict adherence to the legislative mandate under ‘the NDPS Act‘, observing
that offences relating to narcotic drugs inflict societal harm far graver than
conventional crimes, inasmuch as drug traffickers, driven by enormous illegal
profits, imperil and destroy the lives of innumerable vulnerable and
unsuspecting victims, particularly the youth, thereby posing a grave menace to
society at large, the Court further emphasized that even temporary release of
such offenders carries a substantial risk of recidivism, and, drawing strength
2
(1999) 9 SCC 429
8
from its earlier pronouncement in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union
Territory of Goa 3 , reiterated that the alarming rise in organized and
clandestine drug trafficking, which has assumed devastating proportions,
compelled Parliament, in its considered wisdom, to enact ‘the NDPS Act‘ with
stringent provisions prescribing mandatory minimum sentences and fines in
order to effectively curb and eradicate this pernicious and socially destructive
menace.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty4, at
paragraph No.11 it is held as under:
“11. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not
at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon
an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence
collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting
the mini-trial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order
[Pratima Mohanty v. State of Odisha, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 305]
passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against
the respondents herein–original Accused 4, 5 and 3, Smt Pratima
Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar
Samal is unsustainable, both, in law and/or facts and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
18. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Pratima Mohanty 4th supra, while
elucidating the legal position at paragraph No.11, emphatically held that the
High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, had
wholly transgressed the settled parameters by embarking upon an
impermissible enquiry into the reliability and genuineness of the evidence
collected during investigation, thereby virtually conducting a mini-trial, which is
alien to the limited scope of quashing jurisdiction, the Court consequently
declared that such an approach, bereft of adherence to established principles
3
(1990) 1 SCC 95
4
(2022) 16 SCC 703
9
governing pre-trial interference, rendered the impugned judgment legally and
factually unsustainable, warranting its quashment and setting aside in entirety.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P5 at paragraph
No.18 it is held as under:
“18. It is well settled that when considering an application under
Section 482CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is
to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out.
To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute
examination of the record, that there is some substance in the
allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory
language.”
20. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Naresh Aneja 5th supra, while setting
out the legal position at paragraph No.18, held that in proceedings invoking
the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the Court is not
expected to undertake an impermissible exercise akin to a mini-trial or engage
in a meticulous examination of the evidentiary material, rather, the judicial
enquiry is confined to ascertaining whether, on a prima facie consideration of
the allegations as presented, there exists sufficient substance to disclose the
commission of the offences alleged and to satisfy the threshold contemplated
by the statutory language, without delving into issues touching upon proof,
reliability, or ultimate culpability, which are matters reserved for adjudication at
trial.
21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 6 , at
paragraph No.4 it is held as under:
“4. Prior to the passing of the NDPS Act, 1985 control over narcotic
drugs was being generally exercised through certain Central
enactments though some of the States also had enacted certain
statutes with a view to deal with illicit traffic in drugs. The Opium Act,5
(2025) 2 SCC 604
6
(1999) 6 SCC 172
101857 related mainly to preventing illicit cultivation of poppy, regulating
cultivation of poppy and manufacture of opium. The Opium Act, 1878
supplemented the Opium Act, 1857 and made possession,
transportation, import, export, sale, etc. of opium also an offence. The
Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, was enacted with a view to suppress
traffic in contraband and abuse of dangerous drugs, particularly
derived from opium, Indian hemp and coca leaf etc. The Act
prescribed maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years with
or without fine, insofar as the first offence is concerned and for the
second or the subsequent offence the punishment could go up to four
years’ RI. These Acts, however, failed to control illicit drug traffic and
drug abuse on the other hand exhibited an upward trend. New drugs
of addiction known as psychotropic substances also appeared on the
scene posing serious problems. It was noticed that there was an
absence of comprehensive law to enable effective control over
psychotropic substances in the manner envisaged by the
International Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. The
need for the enactment of some comprehensive legislation on
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was, therefore, felt.
Parliament with a view to meet a social challenge of great
dimensions, enacted the NDPS Act, 1985 to consolidate and amend
existing provisions relating to control over drug abuse etc. and to
provide for enhanced penalties particularly for trafficking and various
other offences. The NDPS Act, 1985 provides stringent penalties for
various offences. Enhanced penalties are prescribed for the second
and subsequent offences. The NDPS Act, 1985 was amended in
1988 w.e.f. 29-5-1989. Minimum punishment of 10 years’
imprisonment which may extend up to 20 years and a minimum fine
of Rs 1 lakh which may extend up to Rs 2 lakhs have been provided
for most of the offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. For the second
and subsequent offences, minimum punishment of imprisonment is
15 years which may extend to 30 years while minimum fine is Rs 1.5
lakhs which may extend to Rs 3 lakhs. Section 31(a) of the Act, which
was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1988, has even provided that
for certain offences, after previous convictions, death penalty shall be
imposed, without leaving any discretion in the court to award
imprisonment for life in appropriate cases. Another amendment of
considerable importance introduced by the Amendment Act, 1988
was that all the offences under the Act were made triable by a Special
Court. Section 36 of the Act provides for constitution of Special Courts
manned by a person who is a Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge. Appeals from the orders of the Special Courts lie to
the High Court. Section 37 makes all the offences under the Act to be
cognizable and non-bailable and also lays down stringent conditions
for grant of bail. However, despite the stringent provisions of the
NDPS Act, 1985 as amended in 1988 drug business is booming;
addicts are rapidly rising; crime with its role in narcotics is galloping
and drug trafficking network is ever-growing. While interpreting
various provisions of the statute, the object of the legislation has to be
kept in view but at the same time the interpretation has to be
reasonable and fair.”
11
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Baldev Singh 6th supra, while adverting to
paragraph No.4, delineated the historical evolution of India’s narcotic control
regime and authoritatively recognized that the earlier enactments, including
the Opium Acts of 1857 and 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, proved
wholly inadequate to arrest the burgeoning menace of illicit drug trafficking
and substance abuse, which continued to escalate with the emergence of new
psychotropic substances, taking note of the absence of a comprehensive
legislative framework consistent with India’s international obligations,
particularly under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, the
Court observed that Parliament, confronted with a grave and pervasive social
challenge of enormous dimensions, enacted ‘the NDPS Act‘, as a stringent,
consolidated, and self-contained code providing for enhanced and deterrent
penalties, special courts, non-bailable offences, and rigorous bail conditions,
and emphasized that while interpreting the provisions of this special statute,
courts are duty-bound to keep in view the object, purpose, and underlying
legislative intent to combat the deadly societal scourge of narcotic trafficking,
while simultaneously ensuring that such interpretation remains reasonable,
fair, and consonant with the principles of justice.
23. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, perused the material placed on record, and examined the
allegations contained in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026 registered on the file of Nadendla
Police Station, Palnadu District. Before proceeding to adjudicate the merits of
12
the petition, it is imperative to delineate the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction
exercised by this Court while entertaining a prayer for quashment of criminal
proceedings. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power of quashment must be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations, even
if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence, or where the continuation of such proceedings would
amount to a manifest abuse of the process of Court. The jurisdiction is not
meant to be invoked as a matter of course, nor can it be employed as a tool to
short-circuit a legitimate criminal investigation at its nascent stage.
24. The foundational principle governing the exercise of quashing
jurisdiction was authoritatively articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 7 , wherein a comprehensive catalogue of
circumstances warranting quashment was set out. These include, inter alia,
situations where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, or where the FIR does not disclose a
cognizable offence justifying investigation, or where the criminal proceedings
are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance. The ratio of Bhajan Lal 7th supra has been consistently
followed and reiterated in subsequent pronouncements including R.P. Kapur
v. State of Punjab8, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful
7
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
8
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21
13
Haque 9 ,and Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P 10 .
Applying the said well-settled legal principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition fails to satisfy
any of the enumerated grounds warranting interference at this stage.
25. A careful scrutiny of the material on record discloses that the present
Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.8 in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026, is
specifically and unambiguously implicated as the financier of the alleged
narcotic trafficking operation. The prosecution case, as borne out by the FIR
and the investigation material, reveals that the Petitioner, in active conspiracy
with Accused No.9, extended financial assistance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- to
Accused Nos.2 to 4 for the purpose of procuring 2 kilograms of ganja from
Chinturu in Alluri Sitaramaraju District, including covering their travel
expenses. This financial facilitation, if established, constitutes a specific,
particularised, and material act of participation in the trafficking operation,
fundamentally distinguishable from the kind of vague, omnibus, or general
allegations that have been held to be insufficient to sustain criminal
proceedings. The Petitioner’s contention that he has been roped in merely on
account of acquaintance or friendship with the principal accused is, therefore,
wholly belied by the specific allegation of financial advancement, which is a
concrete act having a direct nexus with the procurement of contraband. The
attempt to characterise his alleged role as mere social association is a matter
9
(2005) 1 SCC 122
10
(2021) 5 SCC 795
14
of defence which cannot be evaluated or adjudicated upon at the stage of
quashment.
26. The legislative scheme underlying Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act‘
admits of no ambiguity. The said provision, inserted by the Amendment Act of
1989, was enacted with the deliberate legislative purpose of casting the widest
possible net over all persons who finance, abet, or otherwise participate in
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, even if they are not
themselves physically present at the scene of the offence or in direct
possession of the contraband. The expression “illicit traffic” as defined under
Section 2(viiib) of ‘the NDPS Act‘ encompasses, inter alia, the financing,
directly or indirectly, of any of the activities enumerated therein. The
Legislature, in its wisdom, specifically and expressly included financing as a
distinct and substantive offence, recognising that without financial backing,
large-scale organized trafficking operations would be rendered unviable. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ram Samujh 2nd supra, has unequivocally held
that the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act‘, being a special legislation enacted to
combat the menace of organized narcotic trafficking, must receive a purposive
and liberal construction so as to effectuate the legislative intent underlying the
statute. Furthermore, in Baldev Singh 6th supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
while underscoring the serious nature of offences under ‘the NDPS Act‘,
recognised that the statute operates on an entirely different and more
stringent plane than ordinary penal legislation, having regard to the grave
societal harm occasioned by narcotic trafficking.
15
27. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the absence of
physical recovery of contraband from the person of the Petitioner operates as
a complete exculpation of his alleged involvement. The scheme of ‘the NDPS
Act‘, read in its entirety, does not restrict criminal liability exclusively to
persons from whom contraband is physically seized. Offences under Section
27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act‘ are constituted not by possession but by the act of
financing or abetting illicit traffic, and therefore, the absence of physical
seizure from the Petitioner is wholly irrelevant to the determination of his
liability thereunder. It is a settled proposition of law, reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tofan Singh 1st supra that ‘the NDPS Act‘ creates a
complex and layered scheme of offences, and liability under various
provisions is not contingent upon or co-extensive with the fact of physical
possession. The Petitioner’s specific role as financier, as alleged, renders him
squarely amenable to prosecution under Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act‘,
irrespective of whether he was present at or near the scene of seizure.
28. The confessional statements of the accused, recorded before a
Gazetted Officer in compliance with Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act‘ in the
presence of mediators, and the fact that such statements were consistent and
voluntary, constitute material that is germane to the prosecution case at the
stage of trial. While this Court is cognizant of the law laid down in Tofan
Singh 1st supra to the effect that statements recorded under Section 67 of ‘the
NDPS Act‘ cannot be treated as confessions admissible under Section 24 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and by extension, under the Bharatiya
16
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and must satisfy the tests applicable to statements
made to police officers, it remains axiomatic that the evidentiary value and
admissibility of such statements are questions of fact and law that fall squarely
within the domain of the learned Trial Court to adjudicate. This Court, in
exercise of its quashing jurisdiction, cannot undertake a micro-analysis of the
evidentiary worth of individual pieces of material or anticipate the findings of
the learned Trial Court on questions of admissibility and reliability. It would be
wholly impermissible and premature for this Court to conclude, at this stage,
that the confessional statements would not ultimately support the prosecution
case.
29. The Petitioner’s submission regarding his professional background as
an air-conditioner mechanic and his alleged absence of criminal antecedents,
while noted, does not constitute a valid or legally tenable ground for quashing
the criminal proceedings. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the antecedents, social standing, and professional identity of an accused
are considerations relevant to bail and sentencing, but cannot be elevated into
a ground for non-prosecution or quashment, particularly when specific and
particularised allegations of criminal conduct are made against him. The
gravity of the offences under ‘the NDPS Act‘ and the serious societal harm
occasioned by organized narcotic trafficking demand that all persons alleged
to have financed, abetted, or otherwise facilitated such operations be
subjected to the rigors of trial. To permit premature termination of proceedings
17
on such grounds would be to substitute sympathy for law and to subvert the
legislative purpose underlying the enactment of ‘the NDPS Act‘.
30. This Court also deems it necessary to underscore the well-settled
principle that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to take the
allegations in the FIR and the material forming part of the chargesheet at their
face value, without embarking upon any appreciation or evaluation of
evidence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratima Mohanty 4th
supra, the exercise of quashing jurisdiction does not involve a mini-trial, and
the Court cannot, while entertaining a quashing petition, sift through evidence
to determine whether the prosecution case is likely to succeed or fail. The
question is not whether the prosecution case is beyond reasonable doubt, but
whether the allegations, if accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of
the offence charged. In the instant case, as has been demonstrated above,
the specific allegation of financial facilitation attributed to the Petitioner, if
accepted, unambiguously discloses the commission of an offence under
Section 27(A) read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act‘, thereby rendering the
prayer for quashment wholly unsustainable.
31. In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled legal principles
governing the exercise of quashing jurisdiction, this Court finds no merit
whatsoever in the present Criminal Petition. The allegations against the
Petitioner are specific, particularised, and prima facie disclose the commission
of cognizable offences under ‘the NDPS Act‘. The material on record does not
indicate any mala fide on the part of the prosecution, nor does it reveal that
18
the proceedings are being carried on without any basis in evidence or
investigation. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner
cannot, by any standard, be characterised as an abuse of the process of
court. On the contrary, to quash the proceedings at this nascent stage, in the
face of specific allegations of financing a narcotic trafficking operation, would
be to render the stringent provisions of ‘the NDPS Act‘ nugatory and to accord
unwarranted immunity to a person alleged to have played a pivotal, albeit
covert, role in organized drug trafficking.
32. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the
observations recorded in this order are confined solely to the question of
quashment and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated independently by the learned
Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated: 06.04.2026
VTS
