JUDGMENT Mr. Gurdev Singh, J.:- Petitioner, Parwinder Singh @ Bobby, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing FIR No. 135 dated 29.6.2000 (Annexure P-1)registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Police Station Dharamkot, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and order dated 25.1.2001 declaring him as proclaimed offender and order dated 30.11.2005 allowing the prosecution to present the supplementary challan. 2. The facts are that the above said FIR was recorded against the present petitioner and one Amarjit Singh @ Amra. As per the version disclosed therein, it was on 29.6.2000 that at about 8-00 a.m., Raman Kumar ASI, along with other police officials was going on western embankment of the canal towards Dharamkot-Shahkot in connection with patrol duty and detection of suspected elements. When this police party had covered the distance of about 2 killas from the bridge of Budhwala one vehicle make Tata Ceira came from the side of G.T.Road. A signal was given to stop that vehicle. That vehicle was being driven by the present petitioner, who was already known to the ASI, and Amarjit @ Amra was sitting with him on the front seat. The petitioner managed to escape whereas Amarjit Singh was apprehended. Three bags were found lying in front of the rear seat and four bags were found lying in the back of that vehicle. In the meanwhile, Mewa Singh came to that place and was joined in the investigation as an independent witness. An option was given to Amarjit Singh @ Amra, whether he wanted the search to be conducted in the presence of some Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, who showed his willingness that search be conducted in the presence of the Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, Nachhattar Singh DSP, was called to the spot and when the search of the vehicle was taken 7 bags were recovered and each of that bag was found to contain 29 Kgs of poppy husk. 250 gms of poppy husk was taken out from each of that bag as samples. The samples and the remaining contents of the bags were sealed and were taken into possession. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was recorded. 250 gms of poppy husk was taken out from each of that bag as samples. The samples and the remaining contents of the bags were sealed and were taken into possession. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was recorded. ASI prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery and on coming back to the police station, produced the case property before the Officer-in Charge of the Police Station. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, and were found to contain poppy husk. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before the Judge, Special Court against Amarjit Singh @ Amra as the present petitioner could not be arrested during the investigation and was declared as a Proclaimed Offender. Amarjit Singh @ Amra was tried and was acquitted vide judgment dated 7.9.2005 by the Judge, Special Court, Moga. The State preferred appeal against the judgment of acquittal but the same was dismissed by this court vide order dated 28.11.2006. 3. After the acquittal of the other accused, the petitioner has come up with the present petition in which he contended that his uncle, Balwant Singh, had filed a complaint before the higher police authorities that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that his motor vehicle and mobile phone were illegally taken into possession by the police and that enquiry at a higher level be conducted so that he may be saved from the high handedness of the police. The Additional Director General of Police (Crime) entrusted the enquiry to Banarsi Dass, Inspector, who after holding the enquiry, found him to be innocent and that Inspector reported that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the motor vehicle and his mobile phone were illegally taken into possession. That enquiry was further verified and approved by Superintendent of Police, Moga. Thereafter, ADGP (Crime) directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, to close the proceedings regarding Proclaimed Offender against him and that he be got discharged from the Court. In stead of getting him discharged, the challan was prepared and was presented in the Court against him as well as Amarjit Singh @ Amra. All the witnesses examined during the trial had a shady background as they were involved in criminal cases. In stead of getting him discharged, the challan was prepared and was presented in the Court against him as well as Amarjit Singh @ Amra. All the witnesses examined during the trial had a shady background as they were involved in criminal cases. That fact was duly considered by this Court while dismissing the appeal preferred against the acquittal of the co accused. When his co accused has been tried and acquitted on the same set of facts, the FIR and other subsequent proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. Moreover, the evidence collected against him does not disclose the commission of any offence. Initially, he was found to be innocent by the police and thereafter has been falsely implicated. 4. On notice of motion having been issued, respondents filed their reply in the form of an affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, DSP, Dharamkot. In that reply all the contentions, which are based on the record, were admitted to be correct. However, it has been pleaded therein that the prosecution agency may file supplementary challan with request to revive the challan in which the co accused has been acquitted. The petitioner is evading his arrest and has not joined the investigation so far. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the co accused has been acquitted and the story propounded by the prosecution has been found to be false, the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner are liable to be quashed. The Judge, Special Court as well as this Court, relied upon the enquiry report and came to the conclusion that they have been falsely implicated. The same evidence is to be produced against the petitioner as has already been produced by the prosecution against the co accused and it is the specific finding of this Court that all those witnesses have got a shady character with a criminal back ground and the conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of their statements. Therefore, the petition is liable to be accepted and the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. Therefore, the petition is liable to be accepted and the FIR and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand it was contended by the State counsel that mere acquittal of the accused may not be made a ground for quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings against the present petitioner even if the prosecution is relying upon the same evidence and the same witnesses. The co accused was not acquitted on the ground that the prosecution case was found to be false but was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. The said enquiry was not made the basis either by the Judge, Special Court or this Court for the acquittal of the co accused. The only observation made was that the prosecution failed to rebut that enquiry report. There is no ground for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings against the present petitioner. 8. The questions arise for the decision of the present petition are:- “(1)whether the acquittal of the co accused after full trial can be made a ground for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings qua the present petitioner and; (2) whether the judgment passed during the trial of the co accused is admissible for the purpose of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. 9. These very questions came up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 885. In that case six accused were tried for the offence of murder. One of them died before the commencement of the trial and the other absconded. Remaining four accused were acquitted. The accused, who had absconded, was arrested and tried separately. He was convicted on the basis of the evidence led during the trial. The conviction recorded by the trial court was upheld. It was held therein that the judgment of acquittal of the four accused was wholly irrelevant and was not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. 10. The same questions cropped up before the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in T. Moosa and etc. etc. vs. Sub Inspector of Police 2006(3) R.C.R. (Criminal)221. It was held therein that the judgment of acquittal of the four accused was wholly irrelevant and was not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. 10. The same questions cropped up before the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in T. Moosa and etc. etc. vs. Sub Inspector of Police 2006(3) R.C.R. (Criminal)221. After discussing the various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and different High Courts on that very point, it was held that the judgment of acquittal of co accused in a criminal trial is not admissible under Section 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, to bar the subsequent trial of the absconding co accused and, cannot, hence, be reckoned as a relevant document while considering the prayer for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. This very matter was considered by this High Court also in Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 520. It was held therein that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground that the other co accused already stand acquitted. 12. In view of the above discussion, the above posed questions are answered in negative. 13. In the result this petition is hereby dismissed. ---------------