Bombay High Court
IMTIYAZ MAHBOOB SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A co-accused's uncorroborated statement and the applicant's antecedent convictions cannot alone justify denial of a discharge application; the applicant must be discharged.
Summary
The applicant, Imtiyaz Mahboob Shaikh, was charged under the NDPS Act for allegedly supplying 556 bottles of codeine phosphate cough syrup seized from Accused No.1. The prosecution's case relied solely on the statement of Accused No.1, with no contraband, call data records, or other independent evidence linking the applicant to the contraband. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the co-accused's statement alone could not sustain the charge, while the respondent highlighted the applicant's seven prior similar convictions as indicative of a prima facie case. The Special Judge rejected the applicant's discharge application, but on revision, the High Court held that a co-accused's uncorroborated statement and past convictions are insufficient to continue the prosecution. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the Special Judge's order was quashed, and the applicant was discharged of the NDPS offences.
Issues considered
- Whether a statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any corroborative independent evidence, can constitute a sufficient basis to deny a discharge application under the NDPS Act.
- Whether prior convictions of the applicant can be used as substantive evidence to establish involvement in the present alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- co-accused statement
- discharge application
- revision jurisdiction
- evidentiary corroboration
- criminal procedure
Judgment
27-REVN-424-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 424 OF 2025
Imtiyaz Mahboob Shaikh ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
NILAM
Digitally signed
by NILAM Ms.Kiran G. Gogavale, for the Applicant.
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.30
15:41:28 +0530
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP.
2. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the impugned
order passed by the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai,
whereby Discharge Application of the Applicant is rejected.
3. It is prosecution’s case that on 4 th September 2023 police
apprehended the Accused No.1 and from his possession seized 556 cough
syrup bottles (codeine phosphate). The said quantity is alleged to be a
commercial quantity. During the course of investigation, it was revealed
that the said contraband had allegedly been supplied to Accused No.1 by
the present Applicant. It is prosecution’s case that both the accused were
acting in furtherance of conspiracy.
4. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the
Page 1 of 3
27-REVN-424-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contented
that there is no independent, admissible or reliable material against the
Applicant to connect him with alleged contraband or with Accused No.1.
The Applicant has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the
statement of the Accused No.1. Apart from the said statement, there is no
material on record against the Applicant. No CDR or any other evidence
produced to show that connection between the Applicant and Accused
No.1. However but this fact has not considered by the learned Sessions
Judge and rejected the Application of the Applicant, which is erroneous
and requested to allow the Application.
5. It is contention of the learned APP that the Applicant is a
habitual offender. He has seven antecedents of similar nature indicating
his alleged involvement in illicit narcotic activities. It is further submitted
that the statement of Accused No.1 specifically discloses that he had
obtained the said bottles from present Applicant. There is prima facie case
against the Applicant. The learned Sessions 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 impugned order,
and documents produced on record.
7. Admittedly, except statement of the Accused No.1 there is
Page 2 of 3
27-REVN-424-2025 (CR).doc
N.S.Kamble
nothing produced on record against the Applicant. No contraband was
recovered from the Applicant, nor there is any CDR or other independent
evidence placed on record to establish the alleged connection between the
Applicant and Accused No.1. It is settled law that the statement of co-
accused in absence of any other corroborative and independent evidence
cannot by itself be made the sole ground for proceeding against the
Applicant. The antecedents of the Applicant also cannot constitute
substantive evidence of his involvement in the present offence. No case is
made out against the Applicant. However, these facts has not considered
by the learned Special Judge.
8. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Special
Judge (NDPS), Mumbai, dated 10th September 2025 in
Sessions Case No.429 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Applicant is discharged in Crime No.77 of 2023
from the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with
Section 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
(iv) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(v) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.