Niyaz. J v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11982 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS) BETWEEN:

NIYAZ. J., S/O. ABUSALI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT. JOGI BETTU, ILANTHILA, BELTHANGADY, ILANTHILA, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 574 241. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE, BY MANGALURU EXCISE PS., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.404/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.19/2022-23 REGISTERED BY MANGALURU EXCISE P.S (SUB DIVISION) SOUTH - 2 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 25 AND 27(b) OF THE NDPS ACT 1985 PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE JMFC-VI COURT, MANGALURU D.K. AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional SPP for the respondent.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the issue raised in the present petition is covered in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BHOLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB1; HARBAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA2 and also the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MR.R.GOPAL REDDY Vs MR. MOHAMMED MUKARAM3.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. Alleged contraband and alleged banned substance

1 (2011) 11 SCC 653 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 490 3 WP.No.13943/2024 dated 31.08.2024

under provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is allegedly recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner.

¶4It is the further submission that, admittedly the petitioner was not in the vehicle. It is the contention that the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner's co-brother was found in the vehicle of the petitioner along with the alleged substance. The witnesses cited in the charge sheet have not stated anything that the petitioner having the knowledge that those banned substances were in the vehicle, with the consent and the knowledge of the petitioner. Thus, would contend that, even if the entire materials in the charge sheet are accepted to be true, no case is made out to frame a charge.

¶5Learned Additional SPP would submit that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BHOLA SINGH supra; HARBAJAN SINGH supra and also the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MR.R. GOPAL REDDY supra,

have held that, if the knowledge of the contraband is not attributed to the person in whose vehicle the contrabands are recovered, then said person cannot be prosecuted.

¶6The Court is of the view that there are no materials in the charge sheet which would indicate that the petitioner had the knowledge that the contrabands are being carried in his vehicle. Merely because the petitioner happened to be the owner of the vehicle and merely because one of the accused was found in the vehicle and happens to be the relative of the petitioner, it is not possible to infer that the petitioner had the knowledge.

¶7Since there are no such materials placed in the charge sheet to say that the petitioner had the knowledge about the contraband being carried, the Court is of the view that the proceedings are to be quashed.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and impugned proceedings in CC.No.404/2024 on the file of JMFC-VI, Mangaluru is quashed.

It is made clear that, observations made in this order are only on the merits of the case against the petitioner.

No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case against the other accused.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10