SUNIL KUMAR MANGALSINH KSHATRIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisioner herein is accused No.6 in NDPS Case No.8 of 1998. By this revision application, he challenges the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, passed below Ex.21 on 10/03/1999. The revisioners had approached the Additional Sessions Judge with application Ex.21 for framing a separate charge and conducting a separate trial against him relying upon Section 218 of Code of Criminal Procedure. That application came to be rejected and, hence, this revision application.

(2.) Facts:- Upon intelligence received by police, a raid was conducted on 12/03/1998 at about 10.00 A.M. on the site of Rolex Pharmaceuticals Limited, at P.O. Rania, taluka Savli, district Baroda, by officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to find that mandrax tablets in large quantity were being manufactured over there and were being supplied. During the course of interrogation and investigation, it was revealed that six persons were involved in the said offence and, therefore, they all were arraigned. The prosecution case was that accused No.1 was the master brain working behind the project, accused Nos.2 and 3 were involved in manufacture of the tablets, No.4 was involved in putting them in circulation and accused Nos.5 and 6 were involved in supplying raw material, namely Acetic Anhydride, to the other accused persons for manufacture of the tablets. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.6, the present revisionist had supplied quantity of acetic anhydride to accused No.5, who in turn passed the same over to accused No.1, which was used for manufacture of mandrax tablets. It has also emerged during investigation that the revisionist's involvement in supply of acetic anhydride was totally irregular, illegal an clandestine. No record was maintained. No bills, no passes, no vouchers, no invoices were issued. Acetic anhydride, a controlled substance as contemplated under Section 9-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") and the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue has by order dated 24/03/1993 declared the same as a controlled substance and has issued certain directions for regulation of manufacture, supply, transport, etc. and, prim facie, there has been noncompliance of this order.

(3.) Upon report being filed, an application came to be given by accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 for supply of copy of Forensic Science Laboratory Report to facilitate tendering of an application for discharge. On the same date, charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 25A read with Section 9A of the NDPS Act. Therefore, accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 came with the revision application to set aside the charge by preferring Revision Application No.292 of 1999, which was heard by this Court along with this revision application and by this revision application, accused No.6 seeks indulgence of this Court by passing an order quashing order below Ex.21 dated 10.3.1999, requesting for separate charge and trial.