Case Note & Summary
Background: The petitioner, a British national, was facing two FIRs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The first FIR (No.9/2017) was registered on 21 March 2017 after a raid at an address in Anjuna, Goa, where the petitioner and one Mohammad Yusuf were found in possession of narcotics. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to police custody. While in custody on 23 March 2017, he allegedly disclosed that he had concealed additional narcotics at his rented house. The police obtained authorisation, conducted a raid, and seized more contraband, leading to the registration of a second FIR (No.11/2017) on 24 March 2017. Chargesheets were filed in both cases. The petitioner moved the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the second FIR and the consequent chargesheet, arguing that it was an impermissible second FIR for the same transaction. Facts: On 21 March 2017, the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji, received information and conducted a raid at House No.608/2, St. Anthony Praisa Waddo, Anjuna. They arrested Mohammad Yusuf and the petitioner. The seizure included 75 grams of methamphetamine, 10 LSD cubes (40 grams) from Yusuf, and from the petitioner, 17 grams of MDMA and 32 ecstasy tablets (13 grams), total worth approximately Rs. 5,86,000. FIR No.9/2017 was registered under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. On 23 March 2017, during custodial interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that he had hidden more drugs in a cupboard at his rented house owned by Victor D'Souza in Gavwadi, Anjuna. He also informed that the key was hidden under a stone. After obtaining permission from the DYSP, the police raided the premises and recovered 20 grams of MDMA, 40 grams of DMT, 30 grams of LSD liquid, the petitioner's UK passport, cash of Rs. 3,000, and 45 pounds. This recovery led to the registration of FIR No.11/2017 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act on 24 March 2017. The drugs were sent for analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, on 20 July 2017. The investigating officer filed a chargesheet in both cases before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, on 16 September 2017. Legal Issues: The core question was whether the second FIR is legally sustainable when it originates from information given by the accused during the investigation of the first FIR and pertains to the same transaction or a continuing investigation. Arguments: The petitioner, through counsel, contended that the second FIR was merely an extension of the facts and investigation of the first FIR, and thus, it was an unnecessary multiplication of proceedings. It was argued that the first informant in the first FIR was also the investigating officer in both cases, indicating malafides. Relying on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Naresh Kakkar v. The State, it was urged that the second FIR should be quashed. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the second recovery was a distinct occurrence, involving different narcotics found at a different time and place, and therefore, a separate FIR was justified. They submitted that it was not committed in the course of the same transaction and fell under a separate cognizable offence. Court's Analysis: The court referred to the settled legal position in Babubhai, wherein the Supreme Court laid down the 'test of sameness'—if two FIRs relate to the same incident or are parts of the same transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. The court noted that the information leading to the second discovery was given during custodial interrogation in the first case. At paragraph 17, the court held: 'In view of the ratio laid down... what is required to be found out is as to whether both the FIRs relate to the same occurrence or are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If answer is affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.' Here, the disclosure was a direct outcome of the first investigation; thus, the second FIR was a continuation and the information constituted a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. The court found that the two FIRs were part of the same transaction. Decision: Accordingly, the court allowed the petition, quashed FIR No.11/2017 and the consequent chargesheet, holding that it was an impermissible multiplication of proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - FIR and Investigation - Test of Sameness for Multiple FIRs - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 162, 173 - The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.9/2017 for possession of narcotics. During custodial interrogation, he disclosed the location of additional narcotics at his rented house, leading to the registration of a second FIR No.11/2017. The court examined whether both FIRs relate to the same transaction or incident. Held: Applying the principle from Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, the second FIR is liable to be quashed as it stems from the same investigation and the disclosure constitutes a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. (Paras 16-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether registration of a second FIR based on disclosure made during custodial interrogation in connection with an earlier FIR is permissible when it relates to the same transaction?
Final Decision
Petition allowed. FIR No.11/2017 and the consequent chargesheet quashed. The second FIR is held to be part of the same transaction as the first FIR and thus impermissible.
Law Points
- test of sameness for FIRs
- second FIR liable to be quashed if part of same transaction
- information during investigation is statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C.
