Published on: Aug 05, 2025 07:46 am IST
Three men were booked in the case, out of which accused No. 3, in his statement to the ANC, had admitted that the contraband material belonged to him. The other two were named in the FIR based on hearsay from witnesses who were not present at the scene, said the court
MUMBAI: The sessions court on Monday discharged two men who were named as accused in a 2024 pharmaceutical drug seizure case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observing that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them and had not produced any corroborative evidence to show their involvement in the alleged crime.
On June 12, 2024, the Azad Maidan Unit of the Anti-Barcotics Cell seized 2,160 tablets and 74 strips containing pheniramine maleate from a parked handcart close to a rickshaw stand in front of the Kismat Hostel near Masjid Station. Three men were booked in the case, out of which accused No. 3, in his statement to the ANC, had admitted that the contraband material belonged to him. While hearing the plea of Saddam Sheikh and Imran Khan, the owners of the handcart seeking to be discharged from the case, additional sessions judge RB Rote said, “I find that the evidence as collected during the investigation, and as relied on by the prosecution, is not sufficient to frame charges against accused No. 1 and 2.”
While the seizure itself was not disputed, the court noted that the prosecution failed to prove that Sheikh and Khan were the owners of the recovered contraband material. Moreover, the prosecution primarily relied on witness statements recorded under Section 161 (process of examination of witnesses by police during an investigation) of the CrPC and the seizure panchnama. Even there, the court noted that the witnesses who spoke about the accused were not present at the scene and their information was based on hearsay. “Such type of statements cannot be the basis for framing charges against the accused persons,” said additional Sessions Judge R B Rote while discharging the two.
The court further highlighted the absence of forensic evidence or any chemical analysis linking the seized drugs to the accused. Regarding the nature of the substance, the court noted that the recovered pheniramine maleate did not qualify as a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, which further weakened the case. “The seized contraband in the present matter is of non-commercial quantity and there is no material on record to show that the accused persons were found in possession of the said contraband or they were the owners of the said contraband.”
The judge concluded that mere recovery of drugs was insufficient to frame charges under the NDPS Act without establishing conscious possession or ownership. “The only material on record is that some contraband was recovered from a place, but the link of the accused persons with the said contraband is not established. Therefore, I find that the evidence, as collected during the investigation and as relied on by the prosecution, is not sufficient to frame charges against the accused persons,” the court stated.