CRL RC/246/2026 of Mudassir Alias Mohammed Mudasir Vs State, Rep. by on 30 September 2026

ORDER

The Revision challenges the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. He is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

CRL RC No. 246 of 2026

2. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner, arraigned as A1, had supplied the contraband namely 700 grams of Methamphetamine and 6.600 Kgs of ganja to A5, who in turn sold the contraband to A3 and A4; that on credible information A3 and A4 were intercepted and the contraband was seized on 16.12.2024; and thereafter, a FIR was registered. Their confessions revealed the involvement of the other accused, including the petitioner.

3. The petitioner sought for discharge before the trial Court mainly on the ground that the materials filed by the prosecution is not sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner for the alleged offences, as the only material relied upon, is the confession of the co-accused. The trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the question as to whether the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 14 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. The witnesses speak about the seizure made from A3 and A4 and also about sending the contraband to the forensic expert and about his report. The only material produced by the prosecution to implicate the petitioner is the confession of A3 and A4. There is no other material even to prove the petitioner's association with the accused, from whom the contraband was seized.

CRL RC No. 246 of 2026

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has bad antecedents; that there are three other cases pending against him; that therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the point raised by the petitioner can be decided only during trial; and hence, prayed for dismissal of the discharge petition.

6. The respondent has also filed a counter to that effect.

7. Admittedly, no contraband was seized from the petitioner. The contraband was seized from A3 and A4. From the list of witnesses cited by the prosecution, it could be seen that the prosecution seeks to establish that A3 and A4 were in possession of the contraband. No witness has been cited, to even prove A1's association with A3 and A4. The only material is the confession of the co-accused.

8. The counter of the respondent lists out four cases, which are said to be pending against the petitioner of similar offences. The counter does not state as to what is the material against the petitioner apart from the confession of the co- accused. It is also seen that one of the cases mentioned in the counter has been quashed by this Court in Crl OP No.27662 of 2026 and in an other case, the petitioner was discharged by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.5740 of

CRL RC No. 246 of 2026

2025 in CC.No.170 of 2025 in Crime No.160 of 2025 on the file of the Nandambakkam Police Station. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any acceptable evidence to frame charges against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ought to have discharged the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is discharged of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

9. Accordingly, the Revision is allowed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

1. The Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore Police Station, Chennai. Cr.No.577 of 2024.

2. The II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases Under EC & NDPS Act.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

CRL RC No. 246 of 2026

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 246 of 2026 30-09-2026