APHC010069632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1102/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK BARA SHAHID, S/O. SHAIK KHASIM, AGE 23 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 12-101B/1, RAHAMATH NAGAR, CHILAKALURIPET PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE S.H.O., NADENDIA, PALNADU DISTRICTREP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, A.P., AMARAVATI 2. R VENKATESWARA RAO, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NADENDIA P.S., PALNADU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026 on the file of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(A) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the registration of F.I.R.No.08/2026 on the file of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District, insofar as it implicates the Petitioner, is wholly unsustainable in law and amounts to a manifest abuse of process. The substratum of the prosecution case, even if taken at its face value, does not disclose any overt act or participation attributable to the Petitioner which would attract the penal provisions of Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a), 27(A) read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’. The Petitioner is neither alleged to have been present at the scene of offence nor shown to be in conscious possession of contraband. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has been roped in merely on the basis of conjecture and suspicion, being described as a “friend” of Accused Nos.1 to 4. Such vague and omnibus 3 allegations, bereft of any material particulars, cannot form the foundation of criminal liability under the stringent provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’. 5. The allegations of financial assistance attributed to the Petitioner are equally untenable. The prosecution has not produced a single document, transaction record, or witness statement to substantiate that the Petitioner financed or facilitated the procurement of ganja. In the absence of any iota of evidence, the invocation of Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’ against the Petitioner is wholly misconceived. The Petitioner is an air-conditioner mechanic by profession, with no antecedents or criminal history, and his implication is a clear case of malice and overreach. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submits that the seizure proceedings themselves reveal that contraband was recovered only from Accused Nos.1 to 7, with no recovery whatsoever from the Petitioner. The Petitioner’s name finds mention only in the narrative of the police report without any corroborative material. It is settled law that mere association or acquaintance with principal offenders does not ipso facto attract criminal liability under ‘the NDPS Act’. The continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner would therefore result in irreparable hardship and grave miscarriage of justice and it is urged to allow the Criminal Petition. 7. Sri A.Sai Rohith, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations contained in F.I.R.No.08/2026 and the subsequent investigation reveal a well‑structured and organized criminal enterprise under ‘the NDPS Act’. The record demonstrates that Accused Nos.1 to 4, in active conspiracy 4 with Accused Nos.8 and 9, procured contraband from the Agency area of Alluri Sitaramaraju District, transported the same to Chilakaluripet, and repacked it into smaller sachets for local sale. The seizure of 1.36 kilograms of ganja from Accused Nos.1 to 4, coupled with the recovery of cash proceeds, mobile phones used for digital transactions, and the Honda Activa scooter employed for transportation, constitutes unimpeachable material evidence corroborating the prosecution case. 8. It is further contended that the confessional statements of the accused, recorded in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and mediators, were voluntary and consistent, thereby lending credence to the prosecution narrative. The accused themselves admitted to their roles in procurement, transportation, and sale of ganja. The seizure proceedings were conducted in strict compliance with statutory safeguards, including informing the accused of their rights under ‘the NDPS Act’, thereby eliminating any allegation of procedural infirmity. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the activities of the accused were not isolated acts of consumption but a deliberate and profit‑oriented trafficking operation. By procuring ganja at cheaper rates and selling it in small packets to habitual consumers, the accused facilitated easy access to narcotic substances among vulnerable sections of society. Such conduct squarely attracts the rigors of Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 27(a), and 27(A) read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’, which penalize possession, sale, financing, and abetment of narcotic trafficking. 5 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor furthermore submits that the gravity of the offence is heightened by the social consequences of the accused’s actions. The organized distribution of ganja promotes addiction, undermines public health, and destabilizes community welfare. The accused, by targeting unemployed youth and daily wage earners, have deliberately widened the circle of addiction and criminality. This Court cannot overlook the deleterious impact of such activities on society at large. 11. It is further argued that the investigation has been conducted with scrupulous adherence to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding arrest, seizure, and remand. The material evidence, corroborative witness statements, and voluntary confessions collectively establish a prima facie case against the accused. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the organized nature of the activity, and the societal harm caused, quashing the proceedings is wholly untenable and deserves outright rejection. 12. The allegation against Accused No.8, Shaik Bara Shaheed, is that he, in conspiracy with Accused No.9, provided financial support to Accused Nos.2 to 4 for the procurement of ganja from Chinturu in Alluri Sitaramaraju District. Specifically, Accused No.8 is alleged to have advanced Rs.6,000/- towards purchase and travel expenses, thereby enabling the procurement of 2 kilograms of ganja. Though not physically present at the scene of seizure, Accused No.8’s role as financier and habitual consumer places him squarely within the ambit of Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’, which criminalizes financing and abetment of illicit traffic in narcotic substances. His involvement 6 is thus integral to the organized trafficking operation and cannot be trivialized as mere friendship or association. 13. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of T.N1 at paragraph Nos.387 & 404 held as under: “387. There can be no doubt that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act to ensure fair trial of the accused must be enforced. However, overemphasis on the principles of natural justice in drug- trafficking cases can be a major hindrance to the apprehension of offenders. In offences under the NDPS Act, substantial compliance should be treated as sufficient for the procedural requirements, because such offences adversely affect the entire society. The lives of thousands of persons get ruined. 404. A confessional statement does not automatically result in the conviction of an accused offender. Such statements have to be tendered and proved in accordance with the law. The evidentiary value of the statement which is confessional in nature has to be weighed and assessed by the court at the trial.” 14. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Tofan Singh 1st supra, while enunciating the law at paragraph Nos.387 and 404, held that although the mandatory safeguards prescribed under ‘the NDPS Act’, aimed at securing a fair trial, are required to be duly observed, an excessively rigid or hyper-technical application of the principles of natural justice in cases of narcotic trafficking may seriously impede the effective apprehension and prosecution of offenders, particularly having regard to the deleterious impact of such offences on society at large, the Court further clarified that a confessional statement, per se, does not ipso facto result in the conviction of an accused, and that such statement must be lawfully tendered and proved, with its evidentiary value being a matter for careful judicial evaluation and determination by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 1 (2021) 4 SCC 1 7 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ram Samujh 2 , at paragraph No.7 it is held as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa, (1990) 1 SCC 95 as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24) “24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.”” 16. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Ram Samujh 2nd supra, while expounding the law at paragraph No.7, underscored the imperative necessity of strict adherence to the legislative mandate under ‘the NDPS Act’, observing that offences relating to narcotic drugs inflict societal harm far graver than conventional crimes, inasmuch as drug traffickers, driven by enormous illegal profits, imperil and destroy the lives of innumerable vulnerable and unsuspecting victims, particularly the youth, thereby posing a grave menace to society at large, the Court further emphasized that even temporary release of such offenders carries a substantial risk of recidivism, and, drawing strength 2 (1999) 9 SCC 429 8 from its earlier pronouncement in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa 3 , reiterated that the alarming rise in organized and clandestine drug trafficking, which has assumed devastating proportions, compelled Parliament, in its considered wisdom, to enact ‘the NDPS Act’ with stringent provisions prescribing mandatory minimum sentences and fines in order to effectively curb and eradicate this pernicious and socially destructive menace. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty4, at paragraph No.11 it is held as under: “11. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini-trial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order [Pratima Mohanty v. State of Odisha, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 305] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein—original Accused 4, 5 and 3, Smt Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is unsustainable, both, in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 18. Therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Pratima Mohanty 4th supra, while elucidating the legal position at paragraph No.11, emphatically held that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, had wholly transgressed the settled parameters by embarking upon an impermissible enquiry into the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during investigation, thereby virtually conducting a mini-trial, which is alien to the limited scope of quashing jurisdiction, the Court consequently declared that such an approach, bereft of adherence to established principles 3 (1990) 1 SCC 95 4 (2022) 16 SCC 703 9 governing pre-trial interference, rendered the impugned judgment legally and factually unsustainable, warranting its quashment and setting aside in entirety. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P5 at paragraph No.18 it is held as under: “18. It is well settled that when considering an application under Section 482CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language.” 20. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Naresh Aneja 5th supra, while setting out the legal position at paragraph No.18, held that in proceedings invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the Court is not expected to undertake an impermissible exercise akin to a mini-trial or engage in a meticulous examination of the evidentiary material, rather, the judicial enquiry is confined to ascertaining whether, on a prima facie consideration of the allegations as presented, there exists sufficient substance to disclose the commission of the offences alleged and to satisfy the threshold contemplated by the statutory language, without delving into issues touching upon proof, reliability, or ultimate culpability, which are matters reserved for adjudication at trial. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 6, at paragraph No.4 it is held as under: “4. Prior to the passing of the NDPS Act, 1985 control over narcotic drugs was being generally exercised through certain Central enactments though some of the States also had enacted certain statutes with a view to deal with illicit traffic in drugs. The Opium Act, 5 (2025) 2 SCC 604 6 (1999) 6 SCC 172 10 1857 related mainly to preventing illicit cultivation of poppy, regulating cultivation of poppy and manufacture of opium. The Opium Act, 1878 supplemented the Opium Act, 1857 and made possession, transportation, import, export, sale, etc. of opium also an offence. The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, was enacted with a view to suppress traffic in contraband and abuse of dangerous drugs, particularly derived from opium, Indian hemp and coca leaf etc. The Act prescribed maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years with or without fine, insofar as the first offence is concerned and for the second or the subsequent offence the punishment could go up to four years' RI. These Acts, however, failed to control illicit drug traffic and drug abuse on the other hand exhibited an upward trend. New drugs of addiction known as psychotropic substances also appeared on the scene posing serious problems. It was noticed that there was an absence of comprehensive law to enable effective control over psychotropic substances in the manner envisaged by the International Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. The need for the enactment of some comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was, therefore, felt. Parliament with a view to meet a social challenge of great dimensions, enacted the NDPS Act, 1985 to consolidate and amend existing provisions relating to control over drug abuse etc. and to provide for enhanced penalties particularly for trafficking and various other offences. The NDPS Act, 1985 provides stringent penalties for various offences. Enhanced penalties are prescribed for the second and subsequent offences. The NDPS Act, 1985 was amended in 1988 w.e.f. 29-5-1989. Minimum punishment of 10 years' imprisonment which may extend up to 20 years and a minimum fine of Rs 1 lakh which may extend up to Rs 2 lakhs have been provided for most of the offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. For the second and subsequent offences, minimum punishment of imprisonment is 15 years which may extend to 30 years while minimum fine is Rs 1.5 lakhs which may extend to Rs 3 lakhs. Section 31(a) of the Act, which was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1988, has even provided that for certain offences, after previous convictions, death penalty shall be imposed, without leaving any discretion in the court to award imprisonment for life in appropriate cases. Another amendment of considerable importance introduced by the Amendment Act, 1988 was that all the offences under the Act were made triable by a Special Court. Section 36 of the Act provides for constitution of Special Courts manned by a person who is a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. Appeals from the orders of the Special Courts lie to the High Court. Section 37 makes all the offences under the Act to be cognizable and non-bailable and also lays down stringent conditions for grant of bail. However, despite the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 as amended in 1988 drug business is booming; addicts are rapidly rising; crime with its role in narcotics is galloping and drug trafficking network is ever-growing. While interpreting various provisions of the statute, the object of the legislation has to be kept in view but at the same time the interpretation has to be reasonable and fair.” 11 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Baldev Singh 6th supra, while adverting to paragraph No.4, delineated the historical evolution of India’s narcotic control regime and authoritatively recognized that the earlier enactments, including the Opium Acts of 1857 and 1878 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, proved wholly inadequate to arrest the burgeoning menace of illicit drug trafficking and substance abuse, which continued to escalate with the emergence of new psychotropic substances, taking note of the absence of a comprehensive legislative framework consistent with India’s international obligations, particularly under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, the Court observed that Parliament, confronted with a grave and pervasive social challenge of enormous dimensions, enacted ‘the NDPS Act’, as a stringent, consolidated, and self-contained code providing for enhanced and deterrent penalties, special courts, non-bailable offences, and rigorous bail conditions, and emphasized that while interpreting the provisions of this special statute, courts are duty-bound to keep in view the object, purpose, and underlying legislative intent to combat the deadly societal scourge of narcotic trafficking, while simultaneously ensuring that such interpretation remains reasonable, fair, and consonant with the principles of justice. 23. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, perused the material placed on record, and examined the allegations contained in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026 registered on the file of Nadendla Police Station, Palnadu District. Before proceeding to adjudicate the merits of 12 the petition, it is imperative to delineate the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction exercised by this Court while entertaining a prayer for quashment of criminal proceedings. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the power of quashment must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the continuation of such proceedings would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of Court. The jurisdiction is not meant to be invoked as a matter of course, nor can it be employed as a tool to short-circuit a legitimate criminal investigation at its nascent stage. 24. The foundational principle governing the exercise of quashing jurisdiction was authoritatively articulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, wherein a comprehensive catalogue of circumstances warranting quashment was set out. These include, inter alia, situations where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, or where the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation, or where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The ratio of Bhajan Lal 7th supra has been consistently followed and reiterated in subsequent pronouncements including R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab8, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful 7 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 13 Haque9,and Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P10. Applying the said well-settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition fails to satisfy any of the enumerated grounds warranting interference at this stage. 25. A careful scrutiny of the material on record discloses that the present Petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.8 in F.I.R.No.08 of 2026, is specifically and unambiguously implicated as the financier of the alleged narcotic trafficking operation. The prosecution case, as borne out by the FIR and the investigation material, reveals that the Petitioner, in active conspiracy with Accused No.9, extended financial assistance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- to Accused Nos.2 to 4 for the purpose of procuring 2 kilograms of ganja from Chinturu in Alluri Sitaramaraju District, including covering their travel expenses. This financial facilitation, if established, constitutes a specific, particularised, and material act of participation in the trafficking operation, fundamentally distinguishable from the kind of vague, omnibus, or general allegations that have been held to be insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. The Petitioner’s contention that he has been roped in merely on account of acquaintance or friendship with the principal accused is, therefore, wholly belied by the specific allegation of financial advancement, which is a concrete act having a direct nexus with the procurement of contraband. The attempt to characterise his alleged role as mere social association is a matter 9 (2005) 1 SCC 122 10 (2021) 5 SCC 795 14 of defence which cannot be evaluated or adjudicated upon at the stage of quashment. 26. The legislative scheme underlying Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’ admits of no ambiguity. The said provision, inserted by the Amendment Act of 1989, was enacted with the deliberate legislative purpose of casting the widest possible net over all persons who finance, abet, or otherwise participate in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, even if they are not themselves physically present at the scene of the offence or in direct possession of the contraband. The expression “illicit traffic” as defined under Section 2(viiib) of ‘the NDPS Act’ encompasses, inter alia, the financing, directly or indirectly, of any of the activities enumerated therein. The Legislature, in its wisdom, specifically and expressly included financing as a distinct and substantive offence, recognising that without financial backing, large-scale organized trafficking operations would be rendered unviable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ram Samujh 2nd supra, has unequivocally held that the provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’, being a special legislation enacted to combat the menace of organized narcotic trafficking, must receive a purposive and liberal construction so as to effectuate the legislative intent underlying the statute. Furthermore, in Baldev Singh 6th supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while underscoring the serious nature of offences under ‘the NDPS Act’, recognised that the statute operates on an entirely different and more stringent plane than ordinary penal legislation, having regard to the grave societal harm occasioned by narcotic trafficking. 15 27. This Court is also unable to accept the contention that the absence of physical recovery of contraband from the person of the Petitioner operates as a complete exculpation of his alleged involvement. The scheme of ‘the NDPS Act’, read in its entirety, does not restrict criminal liability exclusively to persons from whom contraband is physically seized. Offences under Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’ are constituted not by possession but by the act of financing or abetting illicit traffic, and therefore, the absence of physical seizure from the Petitioner is wholly irrelevant to the determination of his liability thereunder. It is a settled proposition of law, reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh 1st supra that ‘the NDPS Act’ creates a complex and layered scheme of offences, and liability under various provisions is not contingent upon or co-extensive with the fact of physical possession. The Petitioner’s specific role as financier, as alleged, renders him squarely amenable to prosecution under Section 27(A) of ‘the NDPS Act’, irrespective of whether he was present at or near the scene of seizure. 28. The confessional statements of the accused, recorded before a Gazetted Officer in compliance with Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act’ in the presence of mediators, and the fact that such statements were consistent and voluntary, constitute material that is germane to the prosecution case at the stage of trial. While this Court is cognizant of the law laid down in Tofan Singh 1st supra to the effect that statements recorded under Section 67 of ‘the NDPS Act’ cannot be treated as confessions admissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and by extension, under the Bharatiya 16 Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and must satisfy the tests applicable to statements made to police officers, it remains axiomatic that the evidentiary value and admissibility of such statements are questions of fact and law that fall squarely within the domain of the learned Trial Court to adjudicate. This Court, in exercise of its quashing jurisdiction, cannot undertake a micro-analysis of the evidentiary worth of individual pieces of material or anticipate the findings of the learned Trial Court on questions of admissibility and reliability. It would be wholly impermissible and premature for this Court to conclude, at this stage, that the confessional statements would not ultimately support the prosecution case. 29. The Petitioner’s submission regarding his professional background as an air-conditioner mechanic and his alleged absence of criminal antecedents, while noted, does not constitute a valid or legally tenable ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the antecedents, social standing, and professional identity of an accused are considerations relevant to bail and sentencing, but cannot be elevated into a ground for non-prosecution or quashment, particularly when specific and particularised allegations of criminal conduct are made against him. The gravity of the offences under ‘the NDPS Act’ and the serious societal harm occasioned by organized narcotic trafficking demand that all persons alleged to have financed, abetted, or otherwise facilitated such operations be subjected to the rigors of trial. To permit premature termination of proceedings 17 on such grounds would be to substitute sympathy for law and to subvert the legislative purpose underlying the enactment of ‘the NDPS Act’. 30. This Court also deems it necessary to underscore the well-settled principle that at the stage of quashing, the Court is required to take the allegations in the FIR and the material forming part of the chargesheet at their face value, without embarking upon any appreciation or evaluation of evidence. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratima Mohanty 4th supra, the exercise of quashing jurisdiction does not involve a mini-trial, and the Court cannot, while entertaining a quashing petition, sift through evidence to determine whether the prosecution case is likely to succeed or fail. The question is not whether the prosecution case is beyond reasonable doubt, but whether the allegations, if accepted in their entirety, disclose the ingredients of the offence charged. In the instant case, as has been demonstrated above, the specific allegation of financial facilitation attributed to the Petitioner, if accepted, unambiguously discloses the commission of an offence under Section 27(A) read with Section 8(c) of ‘the NDPS Act’, thereby rendering the prayer for quashment wholly unsustainable. 31. In view of the foregoing analysis and the settled legal principles governing the exercise of quashing jurisdiction, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the present Criminal Petition. The allegations against the Petitioner are specific, particularised, and prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under ‘the NDPS Act’. The material on record does not indicate any mala fide on the part of the prosecution, nor does it reveal that 18 the proceedings are being carried on without any basis in evidence or investigation. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner cannot, by any standard, be characterised as an abuse of the process of court. On the contrary, to quash the proceedings at this nascent stage, in the face of specific allegations of financing a narcotic trafficking operation, would be to render the stringent provisions of ‘the NDPS Act’ nugatory and to accord unwarranted immunity to a person alleged to have played a pivotal, albeit covert, role in organized drug trafficking. 32. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations recorded in this order are confined solely to the question of quashment and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be adjudicated independently by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 06.04.2026 VTS