Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1549 (TS)

Hyder Khan v. State of Telangana

2025-11-18

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. This case arises out of a complaint received on 08-03-2024 by the Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad City. The said complaint was lodged based on credible information received on 07-03-2024 at about 20.20 hours that one Ahmed Hussain Amer @ Ghajini Amer, who is an active rowdy sheeter of P.S. Mirchowk, was regularly selling narcotic drugs to needy customers in association with another person by name Furkhan. Both the said individuals were frequenting Aza Khana Zehra with the intent of selling narcotic substances to prospective customers. Believing the information to be true, the Inspector made a General Diary entry, informed his superior officer and sought permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division, under Section 42 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’), to verify the correctness of the information. Simultaneously, he informed the Clues Team and addressed a letter to the Assistant Engineer, Dabeerpura, TSSPDCL, Hyderabad, requesting that two government panchas be deputed to accompany the operation. In response, Hamed Ali, s/o Mohammed Ali, aged 39 years, working as an Operator in the Electricity Department and residing at H.No. 17-8-533/168/B, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad, and (2) Mohammed Rasheed Khan, son of Mohammed Miya Khan, aged 51 years, working as a Field Worker in the Electricity Department and residing at H.No. 18-11-418/H/88, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Halka, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, accompanied by P.C. 3158 Sri K. Santosh Kumar, P.C. 30754 Sri B. Anil Kumar, the Clues Team, and the said panchas, left the police station carrying a weighing machine, laptop, mini printer, papers, and packing material. A GD entry was made recording the departure of the team. 1.1. The team reached the spot at about 23.50 hours, where they discreetly observed the suspect, Ahmed Hussain @ Amer @ Ghajini Amer, acting suspiciously. Police issued a notice under Section 50 explaining his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accused opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Sri M. Bala Swamy, Inspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad City acted as Gazetted Officer. Upon conducting a personal search of accused in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and mediators, two small zip-lock covers containing a white crystal-like substance and a Samsung black- coloured mobile phone were recovered. Accordingly, Sri M. Bala Swamy, Inspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Mirchowk Division, Hyderabad City acted as Gazetted Officer. Upon conducting a personal search of accused in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and mediators, two small zip-lock covers containing a white crystal-like substance and a Samsung black- coloured mobile phone were recovered. The accused informed police that white crystal-like substance was MDMA, a synthetic drug, and that each packet contained one gram of the substance; he purchased the same at a lower price and sold it at a higher price for quick profits. Owing to poor lighting conditions and to avoid traffic congestion, the complainant took the accused to Mirchowk Police Station, which was situated less than half a kilometre away. 1.2. At the police station, in the presence of mediators and Gazetted Officer, the confessional statement of accused was recorded. He confessed that he had connections with Furkhan and Sayeed and disclosed that both were his childhood friends who sold Ganja, MDMA and other drugs to him at lower prices; he used part of the drugs for self-consumption and sold the remaining at higher prices to earn quick profits without any effort. He admitted that on 07-03-2024, he procured MDMA from Furkhan at Dabeerpura Darwaja at Rs.10,000/- per gram, which Furkhan had obtained from Sayeed and that he intended to sell it to his known customers, namely, Mohammed Muneeb Uddin, Abdullah Mohsin Ali, Hyder Khan, Syed Imran Ali and Mohammed Khaleelullah Siddique, at Rs.15,000/- per gram. 1.3. On the intervening night of 07/08-03-2024, around 00.10 hours, while accused was waiting near the lane behind Aza Khana Zehra to deliver MDMA to the said customers, he was apprehended by the police along with two grams of MDMA and his mobile phone. The Clues Team confirmed that the seized white crystal-like substance was a narcotic drug. Upon weighing, the total quantity was found to be two grams, i.e. one gram in each of the two zip-lock packets. A seizure-cum- confession panchanama was prepared in the presence of the mediators and the Gazetted Officer, and panch-signed chits were affixed over the seized articles. The seized material and accused were produced before the Station House Officer for taking further necessary action under the NDPS Act, 1985. 1.4. A seizure-cum- confession panchanama was prepared in the presence of the mediators and the Gazetted Officer, and panch-signed chits were affixed over the seized articles. The seized material and accused were produced before the Station House Officer for taking further necessary action under the NDPS Act, 1985. 1.4. Petitioner - Accused No. 8 contended that he was subsequently implicated in the case without any legal justification and without recovery of any contraband from his possession. He stated that his implication rests solely on the confession of Accused No. 3, namely Ahmed Hussain @ Amer @ Ghajini Amer, recorded under Section 67 of the Act. It was alleged by police that petitioner was a customer of Accused No. 3 and a habitual consumer of narcotic substances. However, petitioner denied such allegations, asserting that he was not present at the scene of offence and that no incriminating material was seized from him. Petitioner also stated that he had appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to a notice issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 3546 of 2024. He further stated that police did not conduct any medical test to establish that he was in the habit of consuming narcotic substances. It was contended that the entire case against him was based on inadmissible evidence, namely, confession of a co- accused and that continuation of the case amounted to abuse of the process of law. 1.5. Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2021) 4 SCC 1 wherein it was held that confessions recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible as evidence during trial. He also referred to Criminal Petition No. 16327 of 2024, where this Court quashed proceedings in a similar NDPS case concerning Accused No.12, observing that accused who was merely a consumer, was not present at the scene, and no recovery or medical examination was conducted, hence, continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law. 2. Heard Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondents. She contends that petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.8 in Crime No. 48 of 2024 of Mirchowk Police Station; Accused 6 to 10 are regular consumers and customers of Accused No.3. 2. Heard Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondents. She contends that petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.8 in Crime No. 48 of 2024 of Mirchowk Police Station; Accused 6 to 10 are regular consumers and customers of Accused No.3. It is submitted that on 07.03.2024, Accused No.3 purchased 2 grams of MDMA drug from Accused No.2 at Dabeerpura Darwaja for Rs.10,000/- each gram in a small polythene zip lock cover and he thought to sell the same for Rs.15,000/- per gram. As per his plan, he was supposed to meet Accused 6 to 10 at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra, SJ Rotary, Mirchowk in order to deliver two grams of MDMA to them. On 07/08.03.2024, Accused No.3 reached SJ Rotary from Noor Khan Bazar by auto rickshaw and from there, he started walking and reached backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra; Accused No.3 was available at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra waiting for Accused 6 to 10 in order to sell MDMA drugs, meanwhile on credible information, police apprehended Accused No.3. 3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material placed on record. The allegation against petitioner is that he is a regular consumer and customer of Accused No.3. On 07.03.2024, Accused No.3 purchased 2 grams of MDMA drug from Accused No.2 at Dabeerpura Darwaja for Rs.10,000/- each gram in a small polythene zip lock cover and he thought to sell the same for Rs.15,000/- per gram. As per his plan, he was supposed to meet Accused 6 to 10 at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra, SJ Rotary, Mirchowk in order to deliver two grams of MDMA to them. On 07/08.03.2024, Accused No.3 reached SJ Rotary from Noor Khan Bazar by auto rickshaw and from there, he started walking and reached backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra; Accused No.3 was available at backside lane of Aza Khana Zehra waiting for Accused 6 to 10 in order to sell MDMA drugs, meanwhile on credible information, police apprehended Accused No.3. The principal contention of petitioner is that his implication rests solely on the confession of a co-accused, which is inadmissible. While the proposition laid down in Tofan Singh (supra) is that a confessional statement to an NDPS officer is inadmissible in evidence, it does not preclude investigation or trial. The principal contention of petitioner is that his implication rests solely on the confession of a co-accused, which is inadmissible. While the proposition laid down in Tofan Singh (supra) is that a confessional statement to an NDPS officer is inadmissible in evidence, it does not preclude investigation or trial. The admissibility of such evidence is to be adjudicated during the course of trial, not at the stage of interlocutory revision. The contention that no seizure was made from petitioner’s possession also cannot be a ground for quash when prosecution case is based on a chain of supply and consumption of narcotics, linking all the accused persons. 4. Reliance placed by petitioner on Criminal Petition No.16327 of 2024 is distinguishable on facts. In that case, accused was not named by any co-accused in a corroborated statement, nor was there any chain of transaction established. In the present case, petitioner is specifically named by Accused No.3, who provided detailed information regarding procurement and sale of MDMA. The connection of petitioner to the network forms part of the investigation record, which is yet to be tested during trial. The veracity and admissibility of such material can only be tested at trial and cannot be a ground to stay proceedings altogether. 5. The NDPS Act, 1985 is a special enactment to combat narcotic offences and prompt prosecution is necessary to curb the menace of drug abuse. Granting stay of proceedings in such serious offences, merely on the ground of denial of allegations or absence of seizure from one accused, would amount to interference with due process and frustrate the statutory objective. On overall consideration, this Court is satisfied that petitioner has not made out any case for grant of the relief sought. The issues raised by him involve disputed facts and questions of evidentiary appreciation which can only be adjudicated by the trial Court during the trial. This Court therefore, finds no reason to interfere. 6. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.