Petitioner, a young engineer aspiring to study abroad, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 8(c) and 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and subsequent criminal proceedings.

Prosecution Case (Para 3)

• Background:
  • FIR No. II-36/2021 was registered at Manikpur Police Station based on allegations that the petitioner was found smoking Ganja near a temple on 7th February 2021.
  • The informant’s team claimed to have witnessed the act and destroyed the substance and smoking apparatus at the spot.
  • Personal search revealed no objectionable material.

Defence Argument (Para 4)

• Petitioner’s Contention:
  • There is no evidence to prove the petitioner’s possession or consumption of Ganja.
  • Destroying the alleged evidence (pipe and substance) negated any possibility of verifying the claims.
  • Statements made to police officers are inadmissible, and no other material supports the charge-sheet.

Prosecution Argument (Para 5)

• State’s Stand:
  • Relied on FIR allegations, charge-sheet documents, and panchnama to oppose the petition.

Court’s Observations (Paras 6–7)

• Lapses in Investigation:
  • The FIR and panchnama are identical, with no additional material corroborating the allegations.
  • Destruction of evidence on the spot made it impossible to prove the substance was Ganja.
  • No action or reference to the second accused raises doubts.
  • Continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process, as there is no chance of conviction.

Order (Para 8)

• Final Ruling:
  • FIR No. II-36/2021 and related criminal proceedings (S.C.C. No. 548/2021) pending before JMFC, Vasai, were quashed and set aside.

Legal Analysis

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. NDPS Act, 1985:

   • Section 8(c): Prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, and use of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
   • Section 27: Punishes the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

2. Procedural Principles:

   • Statements made to police officers under investigation are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
   • Failure to preserve evidence violates procedural safeguards necessary to prove possession or consumption under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi:

The lack of evidence, procedural lapses, and destruction of alleged contraband invalidated the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that continuation of proceedings without material evidence would violate principles of justice and fairness.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Narcotics Law, Quashing of FIR, Procedural Fairness

NDPS Act, Quashing Proceedings, Lack of Evidence, Destruction of Evidence, Abuse of Process, Procedural Safeguards