Allowed

Laxmi Koli @ Babita v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Sept 2004REVN/170/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed applications for discharge filed by repetition applicants. The Court held that charging a conspirator based merely on the confession of a co-accused without independent evidence violates settled law, necessitating the quashing of the lower court orders.

What did the court decide?

The applications for discharge are allowed; the impugned orders of the trial Court setting aside the applicants are set aside.

Laxmi Koli @ Babita Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NOS.170.171,285,286
OF 2004
 --------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders
 Memoranda of Coram,
 appearances, Court’s
 orders or directions
 and Registrar’s orders

¶4

 --------------------------------------------------------
 Shri S.V. Kotwal i.b Shri S.S.
 Bhandary for applicants.
 Shri A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for
 the State.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
DATE : 09.09.2004
P.C.
 . Heard Counsel for the
 parties. Rule.
 2. Rule made returnable
 forthwith, by consent Shri
 Gadkari waives service of the
 notice for the respondents.
 3. As short question is

¶5

:2:

¶6

 raised petitions are taken up for

¶7

 final disposal forthwith, by

¶8

 consent. All these petitions can

¶9

 be disposed of by common

¶10

 judgment. The applicant in all
 the respective petitions had
 applied to the trial Court for
 discharge on the ground that he
 was falsely implicated and
 inspite of completion of
 investigation and filing of

¶11

 chargesheet, except the statement

¶12

 of co-accused there is absolutely
 no evidence against the
 applicant(s); nor applicant(s)

¶13

 was arrested along with main
 accused Zarina on 26th July,
 2003, nor there is any

¶14

 incriminating evidence against

¶15

 the applicant(s) and no recovery

¶16

 of any contra band drug is made
 from or at the instance of the

¶17

 applicant(s). The Court below
 has rejected the applications on

¶18

:3:

¶19

 the sole basis that contraband
 drugs certified to be dycetyl
 morphine was recovered from the
 possession of the accused Zarina,
 who was named in the information
 received by police and
 involvement of the applicant(s)
 was prima facie seen as
 co-conspirator and thus valid and
 sufficient ground existed to
 believe that the applicant(s)
 abetted or entered into criminal
 conspiracy with other co-accused
 for illegal possession and sale
 of heroin. The Court below has
 observed that the applicants were
 charged for the offences
 punishable under Section 21 R/w
 section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act for
 which reason they were not
 entitled for discharge.

¶20

 4. Having considered the
 rival submissions and after

¶21

:4:

¶22

 perusal of record there is
 substance in the grievance made
 on behalf of the applicant(s)

¶23

 before this Court that there is
 absolutely no evidence against
 them except the statement of
 co-accused which is pressed into
 service on behalf of the
 prosecution. Even the learned
 A.P.P. fairly accepts this
 position; He was unable to point
 out any other material on record
 to implicate the Applicant(s) in
 the charge of conspiracy or
 otherwise. The Counsel for the
 applicant(s) has rightly placed
 reliance on the exposition of the
 Apex Court in Suresh Budharmal
 Kalani Alias Pappu Kalani Vs.
 State of Maharashtra, reported in
 1998 S.C.C. (Cri) 1625, in
 particular paragraphs 6 and 7 of
 the said decision. The Apex
 Court has observed that at the

¶24

:5:

¶25

 stage of framing of the charge
 the Court is required to confine
 its attention to only those
 materials collected during
 investigation which can be
 legally translated into evidence
 and not upon further evidence
 that the prosecution may adduce
 in the trial which would commence
 only after the charges are framed
 and the accused denies the
 charges. The Apex Court then
 relying on the exposition in the
 case of Kashimira Singh V. State
 of M.P., reported in A.I.R. 1952
 S.C. 159 has observed that,

¶26

 confession of co-accused cannot
 be called in aid to frame charges
 against accused in the absence of
 any other evidence to do so. In
 the present case except the
 statement of co-accused, there is
 no other independent evidence. A
 priori, it will not be open to

¶27

:6:

¶28

 frame any charge against the
 applicant(s) herein. In view of
 this settled legal position, the
 applications as filed by the
 applicant(s) before the trial
 Court for discharge ought to have
 been allowed. Accordingly, the
 applicant(s) succeed. Impugned
 orders are set aside and Misc.

¶29

 applications preferred by the
 revision applicants before the
 trial Court are allowed. Ordered

¶30

 accordingly.

Laxmi Koli @ Babita v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Koli @ Babita v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A/1 Co-Operative Houssing Soc Ltd. Vs M/S Jaikhsian and Co. and Others.

Abdul Malik Mohd.Hussein Vs Zakiya Bano Abdul Mailk and Ors.

M/S. Shreeji Agro International and Ors. Vs Shri. Navin Kantilal Thakkar and Anr.

Rahim Abdul Hakim Lashkari Vs the Assttant Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Lalchand N. Sadnani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Mehfuja Yakub Patrwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.