1 apl1608.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1608 OF 2026 Nilesh Sohanlal Jain Aged 32 years, Occ: business R/o Malipura, Akola. ...APPLICANT ...V E R S U S... 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Yevda, Amravati Gramin, Dist. Amravati. 2. Mulchand Chandrabhanji Bhab For the State of Maharashtra Police Inspector, Police Station, City Kotwali, District Akola. ...NON-APPLICANTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1467 OF 2026 Naresh Kishorbhai Palan Aged 51 years, Occ: business R/o In front of Devki Nursing Home Ramdaspeth Near Data Mandir,Akola. ...APPLICANT ...V E R S U S... 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Yevda, Amravati Gramin, Dist. Amravati. 2. Mulchand Chandrabhanji Bhab For the State of Maharashtra Police Inspector, Police Station, City Kotwali, District Akola. ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S/Shri K.H. Anandani and Bhavin Suchak, Advocate for applicants. Ms D.I. Charlewar, APP for non-applicants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2026:BHC-NAG:11818 2 apl1608.26.odt CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 03.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Since, both the applications are arising out of the same crime, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.85/2026 dated 12.06.2026 registered with Police Station, Yeoda, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 223, 274, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as well as Charge-sheet filed in R.C.C. No.221/2026 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daryapur, District Amravati. 4. The FIR indicates that on 12.06.2026, when Police Inspector – Mulchand Chandrabhanji Bhaburkar alongwith the police staff was on patrolling duty, he received secret information of storage of contraband scented tobacco in the house of co- accused – Sunil Shirsat. Therefore, a raid was conducted in the 3 apl1608.26.odt presence of panchas and contraband scented tobacco worth 57,242/- was found in the house of co-accused – Sunil Shirsat. ₹ The said contraband article is prohibited in the State of Maharashtra by a specific Government Notification. During interrogation with co-accused – Sunil Shirsat it was revealed that some part of the contraband scented tobacco was procured from the sweet supari shop of the applicants. Therefore, on the complaint of the Police Inspector, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants and other co-accused. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the trial Court. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for non applicant No.1/ State. Perused the charge-sheet. 6. Perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that apart from statement of co-accused – Sunil Shirsat, there is no other material to connect the applicants with the crime. There is nothing on record except the statement of co-accused – Sunil Shirsat to show that the said contraband articles were procured from the shop of the applicants. 4 apl1608.26.odt 7. As per Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act of 1872”) only those facts or facts in issue which are considered relevant under Chapter II of the Act would be admissible as evidence. Section(s) 24 to 30 of the Act of 1872, deal with the relevancy and admissibility of ‘confessions’ as evidence. Section 24 of the Act of 1872 provides when a confession would be relevant by laying down a negative rule of relevancy and prescribing the general parameters as to when a confession would be considered irrelevant. It provides that when a confession is caused by either inducement, threat or promise, it will be irrelevant. 8. Section(s) 28 and 29 of the Act of 1872 respectively are an exception to the aforesaid general rule of relevancy of confessions. Section 28 provides that if any inducement, threat or promise was made to cause a confession, but such confession was made after the cessation, removal or eradication of such improper influence or impression, then such confession would be relevant. Section 29 on the other hand, expands the test of relevancy by prescribing a positive rule as to when a confession would continue to be relevant and provides that a confession made under one particular type of promise i.e., a promise of secrecy or made as a 5 apl1608.26.odt result of any deception, intoxication or by one’s own volition in response to any question, would not render such confession irrelevant. 9. Section 25 of the Act of 1872, goes one step further by providing that, even if such confession is not hit by Section 24 i.e., it is not the result of any inducement, threat or promise, still such confession would be inadmissible if it was made to a police officer. Section 26 and 27 of the Act of 1872, however, carve out an exception to this. Section 26 provides that a confession made by the accused to persons other than police officers would be inadmissible if it was made whilst he was in police custody, unless such confession was made in the presence of a magistrate. Whereas, Section 27 permits limited use of such statement only to the extent of discovery of a fact pursuant to the disclosure statement which would connect the accused with the crime with the authorship of concealment. 10. Section 30 of the Act of 1872, provides that a confession made by a person admitting his own guilt and at the same time implicating another person, may be taken into consideration by the Court against the maker as well as against the person being implicated, if both of them are being tried together. 6 apl1608.26.odt 11. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that statement of co-accused cannot be relied upon without any substantive material against other co-accused. The statement of co- accused can only be relied upon to lend assurance. It is only one of the elements in consideration out of all other facts proved in a particular case, and therefore, such confession must be supported by other evidence before it is taken into consideration. 12. In the present case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the confessional statement of co-accused namely Sunil Shirsat to establish the involvement of the applicants in commission of the offence. 13. As stated above, for relying on the statement of the co-accused, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, the accused who made the confessional statement should also make an inculpatory statement implicating himself as well as the co-accused against whom the statement is being used. Secondly, the said statement can be used by the Court only as on assurance/corroboration to other available evidence. In the present case, except the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution has failed to show any other material whatsoever against the present applicants showing his involvement. That apart, the other co- 7 apl1608.26.odt accused was found in possession of the prohibited contraband articles. There is no statement of the co-accused admitting his guilt. It is only upon enquiry by the police, that the co-accused stated that said contraband articles were procured from the shop of the applicants. Thus, the co-accused, while making such statement, did not make any inculpatory statement implicating himself in the offence along with the present applicants. Therefore, the said piece of evidence even otherwise cannot be relied upon. 14. Undisputedly, except the statement of co-accused – Sunil Shirsat that the said contraband articles were procured from the shop of the applicants, there is no other material available on record to show the direct involvement of the applicants in the crime. Even if the material relied upon by the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet against the applicants is accepted, no conviction can be recorded against the applicants. 15. Since, there is no other material against the present applicants, it will be a futile exercise to try the applicants in absence of any other evidence in the crime. Therefore, I find support in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that in any case, conviction cannot be secured against the applicants. 8 apl1608.26.odt 16. Therefore, I am of the view that continuation of prosecution against the applicants would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, this order : (i) The application is allowed. (ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No.85/2026 dated 12.06.2026 registered with Police Station, Yavda, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 123, 223, 274, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Charge-sheet filed in R.C.C. No.221/2026 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daryapur, District Amravati, qua the applicants, are hereby quashed and set aside. (M.W. CHANDWANI J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 19:32:10