Statement of co-accused without independent corroboration is insufficient to sustain prosecution under Prohibition and BNS Acts.

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. 11199016250919 of 2025 (Dahej Police Station) and the resulting proceedings in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2025.

The applicant was arraigned for offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2), and 116(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Section 111(2-b) of the BNS Act.

The prosecution’s case against the applicant was based entirely on a statement made by a co-accused, Jesaram Vishnaram Jat, who was found in conscious possession of liquor.

The applicant was neither found at the scene, nor was he the owner of the vehicle used to transport the contraband.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in the absence of incriminating material other than a co-accused's statement.

The court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It considered Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that while a co-accused’s statement is relevant for the purpose of giving a "clue" to investigators, it requires independent corroboration to sustain a prosecution.

The principle that if there is no likelihood of conviction based on the record, continuing the trial is a futile exercise.

The court evaluated the investigation papers and confirmed that the applicant’s name emerged solely from the co-accused’s statement.

It noted that there was no "connecting material" or "incriminating evidence" such as call records or proof of ownership of the vehicle to link the applicant to the crime.

While the prosecution argued that the applicant had 14 similar antecedents, the court determined that the lack of specific evidence in the current case made the prosecution’s reliance on the co-accused’s statement legally insufficient.

The court reasoned that since the entire case rested on a statement that lacked corroborative evidentiary value, a trial would be an abuse of legal process.

The court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 11199016250919 and the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 94 of 2025 qua the applicant. Rule was made absolute.