Komi Sudakar Reddy @ Sudhakar Shiva @ K.Sudhakar, Vs The… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

Komi Sudakar Reddy @ Sudhakar Shiva @ K.Sudhakar, Vs The… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.9 in S.C.NDPS.No.147 of 2023 (Crime No.375 of 2022, P.S. Amberpet) on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.9 in S.C.NDPS.No.147 of 2023, allegedly founded solely on the confession of a co-accused despite his absence from the scene and absence of recovery from him, are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the petitioner/Accused No.9 appears to be a consumer; he was not present at the scene of offence and nothing was seized from his possession.

Ratio / Principle

A medical test was conducted on the petitioner and the results were reported as 'Negative'.

Key takeaways

The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the crime basing on the confession statement of a co-accused, which, as per Tofan Singh (supra), is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985.ratio¶34
In the said circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.ratio¶34
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.9 in S.C.NDPS.No.147 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally are quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — Quashing under S.528 BNSS — Accused No.9 in S.C.NDPS.No.147 of 2023 (Crime No.375 of 2022, P.S. Amberpet; offences u/Ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) & 27 NDPS Act, 1985) — Held: petitioner is a consumer, was not present at the scene of offence, nothing seized from his possession, and his medical test was reported 'Negative'; he was arrayed as an accused solely on the confession statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in trial under the NDPS Act as per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supreme Court) — Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process — Criminal Petition allowed and proceedings quashed (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Smt. Justice Juwadi Sridevi, 17-02-2025).

I

[3257 ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION NO:2153 OF 2025

Between:

Komi Sudakar Reddy @ Sudhakar Shiva @ K.Sudhakar,, S/o.Linga Reddy Aged about 26 years, Occ Software Employee R/o.Flat No.502, p R Residency, Raghavendra Colony, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.9

AND

The State of Telangana,, Rep by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Through P.S. Amberpet, Hyderabad..

..RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Petition under section 528 of BNSS, praying that an the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to Quash the criminal Proceedings against the petitioner/A9 in sc NDPS No. l47 of 2023 on the file of ll Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally,;

l.A. NO: 2 AF 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to Stay all further pnxemings in SC NDps No.'147 or zozl on the file of Hon'ble ll Addl tvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally, including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.9,;

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s MEGHANA ADDLA suNEEL, Advocate for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent;

The Court made the following ORDER:

=-7

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI}

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.2153 ot 2025}

ORDER

This Criminal Petition^{is filed underSection528 of Bharatiya} Nagarik Suraksha^{Sanhitha,2023 (for short 'BNSS')'by the} petitioner/accused No.9 to^{quashthe proceedings against him in} S.C.NDPS.No.l4Tof2023onthefileofllAdditionaltvletropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad at Nampally, pertainingto Crime} No.375 of 2022 of^{P.S. Amberpet, registered for the offences} punishable under Sections^{8{c}rAnr-20{h) (ii) (B) and 27ofN a rcotic} Drugs and Psychotropic^{SubstancesAct,1985 (for short'Act, 1985')'}

Heard M/s.Meghana^{Addla Suneel, learned counselfor the} petitioner and Sri. Jithender^{Rao Veeramalla, IearnedAdditional} Public Prosecutor^{appearingfor the State-respondentand perused} the record.

Basing on the^{complaint, dated 07.09'2022, that accusedare} in illegal^{possessionof Ganja, the Police, Amberpet PoliceStation'} rushed to the scene and^{seized the contraband from the possession} of accused Nos.1 and 4,^{a case in Crime No.375 of 2022 was} registered against the^{petitioner and others. After completion of} investigation. charge sheet^{was filed, cognizancewas taken and the}

2

Is, I Crl.P,No.Z1S3 of20Z5

case was numbered as S.C.No.147 of 2023 for the aforesaid offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not present at the scene of offence and nothing was recovered from his possession, merely basing on the confession of co-accused, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh y. Sfate of .Tamit Nadul , wherein, it was held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act, 1985, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1985.

On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the petition stating that specific ailegations are reveiled against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the ailegations levelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it appears that the petitioner/accused No.9 is a consumer, he was not present at the scene of offence and nothing was seized from his

' lzoz^{ry .r sccr}

3

15,I Crl.P.No.2153 of 2025

possession. Though a Medical test was conducted on the petitioner, the results were reported as^.Negative,. Furthermore, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the crime basing on the confession statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act, 1g85, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (supra). ln the said circumstances, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

This Criminal petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.g in s.c.NDPS.No 147 ot 2oz3 on the fire of il Additionar Metroporitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed

o.'''iffif??oo,!'#1'-' / //TRUE COPYII

\

To,

ECTION OFFICER

1. Ii: 3,:f:l r[:[:'i[[:,tessions^{Judse, Hvderabad} at Nampary 3. 4. .'Si,tiglpE;^{8""#.s',?si,}rE#:?i*:JBBy,.i",,,}

&n

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 710212025

(r. "i r'l E 5
( o
li -\t
lio'
llLr
t''.r? 2 0 FiB 2025 ! ti

ORDER

CRLP.No.2153 of 2025

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

C{'iB
W

I