JUDGMENT 1. A common question of law, as to whether information given by an accused in his disclosure statement before the police recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1872') which does not lead to discovery of any fact in pursuant thereto, is admissible in law more particularly against any co-accused or as to whether confessional statement of an accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be used against him or against co-accused or a person can be convicted only on the basis of such statement, is involve in all these petitions, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. All the petitioners have invoked extraordinary powers of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. asserting that they are being prosecuted only on the basis of totally inadmissible evidence i.e. the confessional/disclosure statement made by the co-accused to the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is blatant infringement of their fundamental right and cannot be allowed to continue, therefore, their prosecution be quashed. 3. Irrespective of the fact that the cases of the petitioners are under the different laws like M.P. Excise Act, 1915 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short NDPS, Act), but in all these petitions, complicity of the petitioners is based only on the information given by the coaccused to the police, which has been recorded under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, but has not led to discovery of any fact. 4. Brief detail of facts of each petition is as follows: (1) MCRC.No.19835/2018 Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P. 5. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by petitioner Dharmendra S/o Madan Lal Gayri in crime No.181/2017 registered at Police Station Neemuch Cantt, District Neemuch for the offence under Section 8/18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on the ground that he has been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Takhat Singh @ Mukesh and Ramesh Chandra from whose possession the police have recovered 35 kg of opium from a false chamber specially designed in their S-Cross car bearing registration No.MP09-CS-2964 to carry contraband secretly. 6. As per prosecution case, on 14.4.2017 ASI Kailash Solanki of Police Station Neemuch Cantt. 6. As per prosecution case, on 14.4.2017 ASI Kailash Solanki of Police Station Neemuch Cantt. was going to Jodhpur along with accused Rajesh of Crime No. 175/2017 u/s 8/18 NDPS Act for investigation. On the way, when they stopped their vehicle for relieving themselves, Rajesh pointed out a person stating that he is Mukesh Jat, who had supplied him 1 kg of opium. Seeing the police coming towards him, Mukesh along with his companion ran away with his S-Cross car bearing Registration No.MP09-CS-2964 towards Udaipur, Rajsthan. The Police of Police Station Dabok was informed and requested to nab them. The Police Dabok laid picket, caught Mukesh @ Takhat Singh Jat and Ramesh Patidar with their car and handed them over to the Police Neemuch Cantt. When the Police Neemuch cantt was bringing them back, it received information on mobile phone that Mukesh and Ramesh were carrying illegal opium in the car and were going to deliver it in Ahamdabad. Mukesh and Ramesh were brought to the Police Station Neemuch Cantt. On search of the vehicle, 35 Kg of Opium kept concealed in a false Chamber made in the car was recovered. The police arrested and interrogated them (Mukesh @ Takhat Singh Jat and Ramesh Patidar). Mukesh @ Takhat Singh revealed that out of total quantity recovered from the car, 8 kg of opium was procured by him from the petitioner. On the basis of this disclosure recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the police have impleaded the petitioner in the array of the accused. 7. Earlier the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in his absence but letter he appeared before the Court and supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against him. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at bar that no call details showing connection of the petitioner with the co-accused persons have been collected during investigation. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has not controverted this statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ************ (2) MCRC.No. 20064/2018 Vijay and 3 others Vs. State of M.P. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at bar that no call details showing connection of the petitioner with the co-accused persons have been collected during investigation. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has not controverted this statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ************ (2) MCRC.No. 20064/2018 Vijay and 3 others Vs. State of M.P. 10. This petition is filed by petitioners Rahul Meena, Vijay & Dharmendra Gayri (Dhangar) both sons of Madanlal Gayri and Mandanlal Gayari in crime No. 217/2017 registered at Police Station Neemuch, District Neemuch for the offence under Section 8/18, 25 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, claiming that they have been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 of coaccused Sheru Gurjar. 11. As per prosecution case on 27.05.2017, the police received a credible secret information that driver Dharmendra Gurjar, alon with Bharat Gurjar & Gopal Banjara is carrying illegal opium by truck/trailer having mark 'Dev Shri Trailer Service'. The police intercepted the truck bearing Registration No. RJ 06 GA 8008 and recovered 71 kg of illegal opium. The persons present in the truck namely Dharmendra, Bharat & Gopal disclosed that owner of the truck/trailer Sheru Gurjar along with two other persons had got the contraband loaded in the truck. The police arrested Sheru and interrogated him. He disclosed that he along with petitioners Madan lal, his son Dharmendra and Rahul Meena had brought the opium in Maruti Swift Dezire car bearing registration No. RJ 09 CB 5575 and got it loaded in his trailer for transporting the same to Punjab. Registered owner of the aforesaid trailer was Narayan Jaat and Sheru had purchased it vide agreement dated 15.02.2017. Vijaj Gayri is implicated in the crime as he was found registered owner of the Maruti Swift Dezire car used to carry the contraband up to the truck/trailer. ********** (3) MCRC.No.29854/2019 Deepak S/o Kanahaiyalal Maru Vs. State of M.P 12. Registered owner of the aforesaid trailer was Narayan Jaat and Sheru had purchased it vide agreement dated 15.02.2017. Vijaj Gayri is implicated in the crime as he was found registered owner of the Maruti Swift Dezire car used to carry the contraband up to the truck/trailer. ********** (3) MCRC.No.29854/2019 Deepak S/o Kanahaiyalal Maru Vs. State of M.P 12. This petition is filed by petitioner Deepak Maru in crime No.18/17 registered at police Station Narcotics Cell, District Indore for the offence under Section 8/21, 22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, who has been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Mohan Kewlani from whose possession the police have recovered 525 bottles containing 100 M.L. each (total 52.500 liters) Codeine Syrup and 291 strips containing 10 tablets each (total 2910 tablets) of Alphazholam (43 grams 35 Miligram). Mohan has stated in his disclosure statement that he had purchased the aforesaid Narcotic drugs from the present petitioner. 13. As per prosecution case on 23.8.2017, the police received a secret information that Mohan is going to supply Alphazholam tablets and some Codeine syrup to some unknown person. The police reached the spot and arrested Mohan Kewlani. On interrogation he said that he purchased the contraband from the petitioner. There is no recovery from the present petitioner. (4) MCRC.No.31955/2019 Bhopal Singh & Kamal Singh Vs. State of M.P. & (5) MCRC.No.37816 of 2019 Mumtaz Vs. State of M.P. 14. Both t hese petitions have been filed by petitioner Bhopal Singh & Kamal Singh (MCRC 31955/2019) and Mumtaj (MCRC 37816/2019) in crime No.18/2018 registered at Police Station Rampura District Neemuch for the offence under Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings pending against them in the court claiming that they have been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Mohan, Bagduram and Sunil from whose possession the police have recovered 55.534 kg of illegal Poppy Straw. 15. Facts in brief are that on a secret information received by the police on 18.1.2018 that 3 persons having illegal poppy straw are waiting for their bus at the Bus stand, The police reached on the spot and seized 22.984, 24.690, and 7.860 Kg Poppy straw from the possession of Mohan, Bagduram and Sunil respectively. 15. Facts in brief are that on a secret information received by the police on 18.1.2018 that 3 persons having illegal poppy straw are waiting for their bus at the Bus stand, The police reached on the spot and seized 22.984, 24.690, and 7.860 Kg Poppy straw from the possession of Mohan, Bagduram and Sunil respectively. The police recorded their memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. They disclosed that they had procured the seized illegal contraband through co-accused Mumtaj from Bhopal Singh and Kamal Singh. The police arrested Mumtaj and interrogated him. He also revealed that he had procured the contraband from petitioner no.1 Bhopal Singh. Bhopal Singh, revealed that seized poppy straw was brought by his father Kamal Singh. This way the police implicated the petitioners in the array of the accused. (6) MCRC.No.36467/2019 Pappu Singh @ Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 16. This petition is filed by petitioner Pappu @ Rajendra Singh in crime No. 457/2016 registered at Police Station Bhavgarh District Mandsaur for the offence under Section 8/18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, claiming that he has been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Mahendra Singh, from whose possession the police have recovered 2.200 kg opium. 17. As per prosecution case on 28.10.2016 at about 9:45, the police received secret credible information that two persons will go to Rajasthan via Sarsod, Nimbod, Behadpur by black colour Bajaj Pulser motorcycle bearing registration number MP 14 MF 5413 to deliver illegal opium. The police reached on the spot, stopped the vehicle and recovered total 2 kg 200 grams illicit opium from a bag kept on the back by driver of the motorcycle Mahendra Singh. Co-accused Dinesh was pillion rider and was accompanying the main accused. 18. Cash of Rs. 4600/- have been recovered from the petitioner. 19. Owner of motorcycle bearing registration number MP- 14-MF-5413 is Dhanraj Patidar. (7) MCRC.No.41162/2019 Prakash Chandra Vs. State of M.P. 20 . Co-accused Dinesh was pillion rider and was accompanying the main accused. 18. Cash of Rs. 4600/- have been recovered from the petitioner. 19. Owner of motorcycle bearing registration number MP- 14-MF-5413 is Dhanraj Patidar. (7) MCRC.No.41162/2019 Prakash Chandra Vs. State of M.P. 20 . This petition is filed by petitioner Prakashchandra in crime No. 290/2019 registered at police Station Neemuch City District Neemuch for the offence under Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, claiming that he has been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Ghanshyam, from whose possession the police have recovered 540 kg of illegal poppy straw. 21. Facts of the case in brief are that on the instruction of Station House Officer Police Station Neemuch City on 6.6.2019, Sub Inspector, Rajendra Singh Sisodiya was on duty of checking vehicles at Fore-lane Malkhdea Phanta. A white colour TATA Ace pickup vehicle having number plate RJ 09 GB 6567 came. Seeing the police, the driver of the pick-up vehicle got scared and sped up the vehicle. The vehicle first hit the divider thereafter an electric poll. He tried hard to avoid the arrest and run away by breaking the barricade. He was chased and caught. On interrogation, he introduce himself as Ghanshyam . On search of the vehicle, the police recovered 30 sacks containing apx 18 kg each total 540 Kg of illegal poppy straw. Two number plates bearing numbers RJ 24 GB 3127 and RJ 24 GB 3127 were also found. 22. The present applicant has been impleaded in the array of accused on the basis of memorandum statement of coaccused Ghanshyam. According to the registration papers, the first owner of the aforesaid vehicle was Hemant Acharya, but later he sold it out to Ramesh chandra. (8) MCRC.No.41179/2019 Bhima Vs. State of M.P. 23 This petition is filed by petitioner Bhima S/o Jaysingh Banjara in crime No. 92/2015 registered at Police Station Singoli District Neemuch for the offence under Section 8/21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, claiming that he has been impleaded in the array of the accused on the basis disclosure statement of Gopal , from whose possession, the police have recovered 1.400 kg smack. 24 Facts of the case in brief are that on 9.6.2015, the police received a secret credible information that 3 persons are carrying with them 1.400 kg of Smack. The police reached Singoli Ratangarh Road, laid picket near culvert of of river at village Tal and started checking of the vehicle. During the checking, the police stopped a Red Color Platina Motor Cycle bearing registration No.RJ09SP8631 which was being driven by co-accused Ramesh Dhakad. Two pillion riders Sharif and Gopal were also sitting on the motorcycle. On search, nothing was recovered from the vehicle, but when the police searched co-accused Ramesh, 50 grams smack was recovered. The police further recovered 50 grams smack from Sharif and 800 grams from Gopal. In total 1 kg 400 grams smack was seized from their illegal possession. Owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 09 SP 8631 is Prakash Kalbeliya s/o Mehtab Nath Kalebeliya, but documents seized during investigation show that it was mortgaged to Sharif S/o Mehtab. (9) MCRC.No.43345/2019 Dinesh Joshi Vs. State of M.P. 25 This petition is filed by petitioner Dinesh Joshi in crime No.474/2015 registered at Police Station Bhavgarh District Mandsaur for the offence under Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act claiming that he has been impleaded in the array of the accused on basis of disclosure statements of co-accused Shyamlal and Ramswaroop, from whose possession, the police seized 80 kg of illegal poppy straw. 26. Facts in brief are that on 11.12.2015, the police received a secret information that two persons in a silver colour Honda car bearing registration number MH-04-DN-6114 are heading towards highway from Amlawad Nirdhari road with illegal poppy straw. The police reached on the spot and laid picket. After some time the car was noticed. The driver was indicated to stop the car but he sped it up and tried to run away. But in hurry and nervousness he dashed the car with divider. The engine of the car got switched off. By the time chasing police party reached their and caught the occupants, who were trying to ran away. On search the police seized 80 Kg of poppy straw was found in the car in the joint possession of Shyamlal and Ramswaroop. The police recorded their statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. They revealed that they had purchased the contraband from the petitioner. On search the police seized 80 Kg of poppy straw was found in the car in the joint possession of Shyamlal and Ramswaroop. The police recorded their statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. They revealed that they had purchased the contraband from the petitioner. Therefore, the police have impleaded him in the array of the accused . 27. Owner of the Vehicle bearing registration number MH- 04-DN-6114 is Farhan Ahmed Sayeed. 28. Nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner. (10) MCRC No.45237/2019 Krishna & Rajendra Vs. State of M.P. 29. This petition is filed by petitioner Krishna and Rajendra in crime No.248/2019 registered at Police Station Maheshwar District Khargone for the offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, claiming that he has been impleaded in the array of accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of Rakesh, from whose the police have recovered 60.260 bulk liters illicit liquor. 30 . Fact in short are that after receiving secret information, the police raided the house of co-accused Rakesh on 13.09.2019 and on search recovered 60.26 liters of illegal liquor from his house, for which he was not having any license. On interrogation, Rakesh disclosed that the liquor was kept his house by the petitioners with an assurance that next day they take it back next day and will sell it to the owners of the road side Dhabas. On the basis of this statement, the police have impleaded the present petitioners. 31. Thus, in all these petitions, complicity of the petitioners therein is based on the statement of the co-accused that liquor/contraband recovered from their possession was procured from or provided by the petitioners or they were going to deliver the same to them or in any other manner, the petitioners were involved in trafficking, transporting, or sale/purchase of the liquor/contraband, as the case may be but neither anything was recovered from their possession nor were they found owner of the vehicles carrying/transporting the contraband. No other evidence to connect them with the alleged crime or the criminal found involve in the crime could be collected during investigation. 32. Before proceeding further, it would be trite to have a look at the law. For the sake of convenience Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced below: 27. No other evidence to connect them with the alleged crime or the criminal found involve in the crime could be collected during investigation. 32. Before proceeding further, it would be trite to have a look at the law. For the sake of convenience Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced below: 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 33. The law is now well settled that the information given by the co-accused is inadmissible if the same does not lead to any recovery. In a string of judgment right from the preindependence era, the Courts have settled this proposition of law. We can refer some of the judgments passed in Pullukari Kotaya Vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 , Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 , Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 597 , State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 17 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 230 (page 36), Mustkeem Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724 , Asar Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264 , Kusal Toppo Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1563 , Valiyaveetil Ashraf v. State, S.H.O. Kottakkal Police Station reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 441 : 1994 Cri LJ 555 (page 561) and Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 SCC OnLine MP 442 : 2001 Cri LJ 875 (Page 876). 34. In this respect we can also illustrate some judgments of this Court rendered in Anant Kumar Vs. State of MP reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499 , Sharif Khan Vs. State of M.P. 1997 (II) MPWN page 254 N 173 , Raghu Thakur Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPHT 116 , Suresh Upadhayay Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 837/2014 dated 5th March 2014 , Rajveer Singh Vs. State of MP reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499 , Sharif Khan Vs. State of M.P. 1997 (II) MPWN page 254 N 173 , Raghu Thakur Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPHT 116 , Suresh Upadhayay Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 837/2014 dated 5th March 2014 , Rajveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 265 , Raju @ Rajesh Chawla Vs. State of M.P. order dated 06.10.2015 rendered in MCRC No. 3579/2015 , Gajendra Singh Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. reported in MANU/MP/0976/2016 , Madan Lal Vs. State of M.P. order dated 27.10.2017 rendered in CRR No. 69/2017 , Faijal & ors Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 10904/2017 dated 19th February 2018 , Dashrath Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 5452/2017 dated 26 November 2018 , Mohamad Wasim Mewati Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC 4425/2019 Dated 11th March 2019 . 35. Thus, it is explicit that the information given or disclosure made by the accused to the police, which does not lead to any recovery, is not admissible in evidence against coaccused and on the basis of such inadmissible evidence, the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law, which should not and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Though, the powers under Section 482 are extraordinary in nature and has to be used sparingly and cautiously, but these are the cases; where this Court is fully satisfied that non use of such inherent powers would lead to or would cause injustice. It would be in the interest of justice or necessary to achieve the object of the law that no innocent person shall be allowed to face unnecessary prosecution, if there being no evidence at all against him. Therefore, all the petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending against respective petitioners therein before the trial Court are hereby quashed . The petitioners of respective petitions are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds, if furnished, stand discharged. 36. It is made clear that the prosecution against the other co-accused persons shall continue in accordance with law. 37. Copy of this order along with the order delivered by this Court earlier in CRR.No.482/2012 Ismail Khan and another Vs. The petitioners of respective petitions are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds, if furnished, stand discharged. 36. It is made clear that the prosecution against the other co-accused persons shall continue in accordance with law. 37. Copy of this order along with the order delivered by this Court earlier in CRR.No.482/2012 Ismail Khan and another Vs. State of M.P. order dated 30.5.2019 be sent to the DG, Police Madhya Pradesh, the Excise Commissioner, the Crime Analysis Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and to the Director, Prosecution to examine the weakness of the investigation and to find out solution; so that perpetrator may not take undue advantage of weakness of the system/prosecution as well as lackadaisical attitude of indolent Investigating Officers be dealt with appropriately. 38.. With an optimistic note, all the petitions stand disposed off.