Bombay High Court
Parvez Narsulla Khan URF Chinku PathannversusState of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the witness statement was inadmissible hearsay and, in the absence of any other evidence, there was no prima facie case, warranting the applicant's discharge.
Summary
The applicant, Parvez Narsulla Khan, was charged under the NDPS Act for allegedly supplying mephedrone to a co-accused. The prosecution relied solely on the statement of a witness, Jagdish Soni, who claimed the applicant supplied the contraband but admitted he never met the applicant together with the co-accused, rendering the statement hearsay. No other documentary or testimonial evidence linked the applicant to the crime. The Special Judge rejected the applicant's discharge application, but on revision the High Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain a trial. The Court quashed the Special Judge's order, discharged the applicant, and allowed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether a witness statement that does not constitute personal knowledge is admissible as substantive evidence under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant to justify continuation of trial.
- Whether the order rejecting the applicant's discharge application should be set aside.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- hearsay
- discharge
- revision
- drug trafficking
- evidentiary insufficiency
Judgment
3-REVN-406-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2025
Parvez Narsulla Khan Urf Chinku Pathan ...Applicant/s
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Ayaz Khan along with Ms. Zehra Charania, Mr. Dilip Mishra and Ms.
Mallika Sharma, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI- Sanjay Patil with IO-Joshty, API, V. P. Road, Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this revision application is to the order of
rejection of the discharge application filed by the applicant.
2. It is prosecution's case that on 18th July 2019, the police
apprehended accused No. 1 and found 10 grams of Mephedrone (MD) in
his possession. On 31st July 2019, accused No. 2 was arrested by the police
and 10 grams of MD were found in his possession. The present applicant
was arrested on 30th August 2019. It is alleged that the applicant had
supplied the contraband to accused No. 2.
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that except
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date:
2026.09.12
15:40:28
+0530 the statement of accused No. 2, no other document is produced on record
Page 1 of 3
3-REVN-406-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
to show that the applicant supplied the contraband to accused No. 2. The
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. However, this fact was
not considered by learned Special Judge. Hence, requested to allow the
application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the statement of witness-
Jagdish Soni is recorded, in which, he has stated that the applicant used to
supply contraband to accused No. 2. There is a prima facie case against the
applicant. Learned Special Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no
interference is required in it, and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order.
Except the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution has relied on the
statement of witness-Jagdish Soni. In his statement, he has stated that the
applicant used to supply contraband to accused No. 2, and that on one
occasion he had gone to meet the applicant along with accused No. 2, but
the applicant was not present as he was absconding. The statement of this
witness shows that he did not meet the applicant along with accused
No. 2, and hence, the statement of this witness is hearsay. No other
material is produced on record to connect the applicant to the present
crime. Continuing the trial against the applicant would amount to an abuse
of the process of law. Hence, I pass following order:
Page 2 of 3
3-REVN-406-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
ORDER
(1) The impugned order dated 10th September 2025 below Exhibit
7 in NDPS Special Case No.82 of 2021 passed by the learned
Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr.
Bombay, is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The applicant is discharged in NDPS Special Case No.82 of
2021.
The revision application is allowed in above terms and disposed
of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…