Bombay High Court
Siraj Mohammed Fakir Mohammed Qureshi Alias SidhaversusAnti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar Unit
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Charges framed solely on the co‑accused’s statement without corroborative evidence are invalid, and the applicant is discharged.
Summary
The applicant, Siraj Mohammed Qureshi, challenged the framing of charges under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, alleging that the prosecution relied solely on the co‑accused’s statement without any documentary or material evidence linking him to the contraband. The prosecution claimed the applicant supplied 65 g of mephedrone to the co‑accused and presented antecedent allegations of similar conduct. The court examined the record and found no independent evidence establishing contact or conspiracy between the applicant and the co‑accused. Relying on the principle that a charge must be supported by prima facie material, the judge held that proceeding on the co‑accused’s statement alone amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the charges were set aside, the applicant was discharged, and the revision and interim applications were disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a charge under the NDPS Act can be validly framed when the only basis is the statement of a co‑accused without corroborative evidence.
- Whether the absence of documentary or material proof of contact or conspiracy renders the prosecution's case prima facie insufficient.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- charge framing
- evidence
- co‑accused statement
- abuse of process
- discharge
Judgment
10-REVN-100-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 100 OF 2026
Siraj Mohammed Fakir Mohammed Qureshi Alias Sidha
VAISHALI ...Applicant/s
ANIL Versus
TIKAM Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar Unit ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI With
ANIL TIKAM INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2026
Date: 2026.09.07
10:50:28 +0530 IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2026
Siraj Mohd Fakir Mohd Qureshi Alias Siddha ...Applicant/s
Versus
Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar Unit ...Respondent/s
________________________________________________________________
Ms. Puja Yadav i/by Shreerat Kamath, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for
the State.
2. The challenge in this application is to the framing of charge
against the Applicant vide Exhibit 11 and 13 dated 16/10/2025 passed by
the Learned Special NDPS Court, Greater Bombay in Special Case No. 1078
of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22 (c) & 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Page 1 of 3
10-REVN-100-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
3. It is prosecution's case that on 31/12/2023, the police
apprehended the co-accused and found 65 grams of Mephedrone (M.D.) in
his conscious possession. It is alleged that Applicant supplied the said
contraband to the co-accused.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the
Applicant has been charged with the present crime merely on the basis of
statement of the co-accused. No documents or evidence is produced on
record to show that the applicant was in contact with the co-accused. But
this fact is not considered by the Learned Special Judge and charge has
been framed against the Applicant, which is erroneous and requested to
allow the Application.
5. It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant has
antecedents of similar nature. Applicant was in contact with the co-
accused. Adequate material is produced on record to show the
involvement of the Applicant in the crime. There is prima facie case
against the Applicant. The Learned Judge has passed well reasoned order.
No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused documents
produced on record. The Applicant has been charged on the basis of
statement of co-accused. Nothing is produced on record to show that the
Applicant was in contact with the co-accused. When prosecution alleges
Page 2 of 3
10-REVN-100-2026 (CR).doc
Tikam
that the applicant was involved in conspiracy with the co-accused, some
documents or evidence needs to be produced along with the charge-sheet
to show the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. But no evidence is
produced to show the involvement of the applicant on record. It shows no
case is made out against the Applicant. Continuing trial against the
Applicant would amount to an abuse of process of law and I pass
following order:
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) Charges framed against the Applicant vide Exhibit-11 and 13
dated 16/10/2025 passed by the Learned Special NDPS Judge, Greater
Bombay in Spl. Case No. 1078 of 2024 are set aside. Applicant is hereby
discharged from the charges leveled against him.
(iii) Criminal Revision Application along with pending Interim
Application are disposed of accordingly.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…