The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained solely on uncorroborated memorandum statements and seized electronic devices with no recoverable data. This judgment reinforces the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legally admissible evidence in initiating or continuing prosecution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Akash Das, was named as an accused in FIR No. 22/2024 registered under Section 201 IPC and Sections 7(1) and 8 of the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022. The case arose from allegations that bank accounts opened by co-accused Dinesh Singh were used for illegal gambling transactions. The petitioner’s name surfaced only during investigation through a memorandum statement allegedly recorded by two witnesses, Krishna Pal and Rohit Gupta.
Procedural History
- 15 January 2024: FIR registered against eight accused persons based on secret information and disclosures by Dinesh Singh.
- During investigation: Petitioner’s name added solely on basis of memorandum statement; no independent evidence collected.
- 18 June 2024: Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance based on charge sheet.
- October 2025 - February 2026: High Court directed Superintendent of Police to file two personal affidavits detailing evidence against petitioner.
- 24 February 2026: Petition heard and decided by Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and all proceedings against him, arguing that his implication was arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, and violative of Article 21.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether uncorroborated memorandum statements, coupled with the seizure of a mobile phone whose data was admitted to be irrecoverable, constitute sufficient grounds to continue criminal proceedings under Section 201 IPC and the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act, 2022.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the memorandum statement lacked essential formalities: no proper witnesses, no specified location of recording, and no signatures. The same two witnesses were cited across multiple unrelated cases in different districts, raising doubts about their credibility. No bank transaction, digital footprint, or financial trail linked the petitioner to the alleged offences. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that prosecution based on suspicion alone amounts to abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the memorandum statement and seizure of the mobile phone were sufficient to initiate proceedings. The affidavit of the Superintendent of Police reiterated that the petitioner allegedly confessed to operating online gambling panels. However, no new evidence was produced despite two court directives, and the State admitted the mobile data was deleted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal status of memorandum statements under the Indian Evidence Act and held that such statements are not substantive evidence. Under Section 27, they are admissible only if they lead to the discovery of a fact. Here, the seizure of the mobile phone did not yield any recoverable data, rendering the discovery claim nugatory.
"The alleged seizure does not result in discovery of any incriminating fact or material so as to substantiate the accusations levelled against the petitioner."
The Court emphasized that Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) empowers High Courts to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The absence of any documentary, electronic, or independent witness evidence - despite repeated judicial directions - demonstrated a complete failure to establish a prima facie case.
The Court further noted that the prosecution’s reliance on co-accused statements and unverified memoranda violated the principle that corroboration is mandatory for testimonial evidence in criminal cases. The fact that the petitioner had no prior antecedents and no incriminating transactions in his name further weakened the case.
The Court rejected the notion that mere implication through investigation statements, without independent verification, can justify the stigma and burden of criminal trial.
The Verdict
The petitioner prevailed. The Court held that uncorroborated memorandum statements and irrecoverable electronic devices cannot sustain criminal proceedings. While declining to quash the case outright, the Court barred coercive action against the petitioner unless fresh, admissible evidence emerges during trial against other accused.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Memorandum Statements Are Not Evidence
- Practitioners must challenge prosecution cases built solely on investigation memoranda without corroboration.
- Courts must scrutinize whether such statements meet the narrow threshold of Section 27 Evidence Act.
- Any reliance on memoranda without witness credibility or procedural compliance is legally untenable.
Seizure Without Recovery Is Meaningless
- Seizure of electronic devices without forensic recovery or data extraction cannot be treated as discovery under Section 27.
- Prosecutors must demonstrate tangible, usable evidence from seized items; mere possession or alleged deletion is insufficient.
- Defence counsel should move for discharge at the earliest stage if no recoverable data exists.
Judicial Oversight Prevents Abuse
- Courts have a duty to intervene when investigations rely on speculative or procedurally flawed material.
- Repeated failure to produce evidence despite court directions strengthens the case for protective orders.
- This judgment provides a roadmap for securing interim protection against arbitrary prosecution pending trial.
