Allowed¶4

Saiyad Majar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2025CRL.P/5217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: NDPS Act Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 8(c); quashing of criminal proceedings; Spl.C No.49/2025; Crime No.185/2024; Bylakuppe Police Station, Mysuru; ganja plants; Sy. No.93/1 Biligunda village; no recovery from accused No.1; recovery only from accused No.2; sole confessional statement of co-accused; absence of material — complaint, FIR, charge sheet, witness statements, mahazar; Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No.5217 of 2025; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; decided 19.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; entire proceedings in Spl.C No.49/2025 arising out of Crime No.185/2024, pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, quashed insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.

Saiyad Majar Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings against the petitioner (accused No.1) in Spl.C No.49/2025 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 8(c) of the NDPS Act deserve to be quashed in the absence of any material connecting or linking the petitioner with the alleged offences, no recovery of prohibited substance having been made from him. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

In the absence of legal or acceptable material — comprising any complaint, FIR, charge sheet materials, statements of witnesses, mahazar documents etc. — connecting or linking the petitioner with the alleged offences, and where no recovery of the prohibited substance was made from the petitioner, the petitioner could not be incriminated for the alleged offences.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Based on the sole confessional statement made by accused No.2, the petitioner could not have been incriminated for the alleged offences.

¶3

Key takeaways

Consequently, the impugned proceedings in Spl.C No.49/2025 (arising out of Crime No.185/2024) pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, were quashed.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No.5217 of 2025) filed under S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS 2023 — NDPS Act, Ss.20(b)(ii)(B) & 8(c) — quashing of proceedings — FIR Crime No.185/2024 dated 10.11.2024, Bylakuppe Police Station, registered on information of ganja plants grown in Sy. No.93/1, Biligunda village, against petitioner (accused No.1) and one Saiyad Muqhij — proceedings in Spl.C No.49/2025 before VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru — mahazar report dated 10.11.2024 disclosed no recovery of prohibited substance from the petitioner, who was not present; substances recovered only from custody of accused No.2 — except the statement of accused No.2, no material (complaint, FIR, charge-sheet materials, witness statements, mahazar documents) connected the petitioner with the alleged offences — petitioner could not be incriminated on the sole confessional statement of the co-accused — impugned proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1 quashed; petition allowed (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.; decision dated 19.06.2025).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21174 CRL.P No. 5217 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5217 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SAIYAD MAJAR S/O. LATE SAIYAD MAHAMUD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: RAJIVANAGAR, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570007.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYLAKUPPE POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C NO.49/2025 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20(b) (II)(B), 8(C) OF NDPS ACT OF BYLAKUPPE POLICE STATION, MYSURU WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:21174 CRL.P No. 5217 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following relief:

¶26

"Wherefore, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.C No.49/2025 on the file of VII Additional District And Sessions Judge, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B), 8(C) of NDPS Act of Bylakuppe Police Station, Mysuru which is produced at ANNEXURE-'A' , in the interests of justice."

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶28

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State and perused the material on record.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the respondent – State filed the impugned complaint on 10.11.2024 pursuant to an information received from one Mudduraju that there were ganja plants being grown in the land in Sy. No.93/1 of Biligunda village standing in the name of one Syed Apsar and in pursuance of the said information, FIR in Crime No.185/2024 dated 10.11.2024 was registered against the petitioner – accused No.1 and one Saiyad Muqhij for the offences punishable under Sections

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21174 CRL.P No. 5217 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

20(b)(ii)(B) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). After the mahazar report dated 10.11.2024 was drawn up which discloses that there was no recovery of prohibited substance from the petitioner who was not there at that point of time and such substances were recovered from the custody of accused No.2 and not from accused No.1 / petitioner. The mahazar as well as the charge sheet and other material on record also discloses that except the statement given by the accused No.2, there is no other material on record to establish that the petitioner was either in the custody of the prohibited substances or that he was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 8(c) of the NDPS Act. Under these circumstances, in the absence of legal or acceptable material comprising of any complaint, FIR, charge sheet materials, statements of witnesses, mahazar documents etc., which connects or links the petitioner with the alleged offences especially where no recovery of the prohibited substance was made from the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that based on the sole confessional statement made by the accused No.2, the petitioner could not have been incriminated for the alleged offences

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21174 CRL.P No. 5217 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

and consequently, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner

¶36

deserve to be quashed.

¶37

In the result, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The Petition is hereby allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl. C. No.49/2025 arising out of Crime No.185/2024 registered by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and pending on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, insofar as the petitioner / accused No.1 is concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶42

SMA

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Saiyad Majar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyad Majar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh N C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Prashanthu K.M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murali Krishna S., Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhakar. B. M. Vs State by

Mr M C Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Giriappa Chiranjeeivi Santhosh Shamachar Vs State of Karnataka