GOMARAM SOMARAM JAT Vs. U H PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. S.P.Dave, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

(2.) Heard Mrs.Unwala, learned advocate for the revisioner and Mr.S.P.Dave, learned APP for the State. The revisioner herein challenges the order passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge below application Exh.80 in Session Case No : 175 of 1998 pending before him. The present petitioner is the accused in that session case and is being tried for offences under Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the `NDPS Act' for short). During the course of trial, the application came to be tendered on behalf of the applicant objecting to taking on record and statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and praying for not exhibiting that document on the ground that the summon seems to have been issued under Section 53(1) of the NDPS Act, whereas the statement sought to be to be recorded purports to be under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and therefore, it cannot be taken on record unless condition as contemplated under Section 53(A) are fulfilled. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides passed the impugned order dated 25/06/1999 rejecting the application. The learned Additional City Sessions Judge dealt with the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused revisioner and ultimately observed that the statement is relevant and it is therefore to be taken on record, but that does not mean that it is a `gospel piece' but it has to be considered under which circumstances and it is recorded in whose presence which was recorded and under which circumstances persons making was placed. The question of evidential value has to be assessed at the time of final arguments and then ultimately rejected the application.

(3.) Mrs. Unwala submitted that the revisioner challenges this order for the reasons that an important right of the accused is adversely affected by admitting this document on record. She says that the right of the accused of challenging the admissibility of the document is finally concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and therefore the revision application is maintainable. On merits, she submitted that the summons is very craftily drafted. On one hand, it speaks of Section 53(1) of the NDPS Act, on the other hand, a picture is tried to be created that it is summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and therefore, an attempt is made to take undue advantage of both the provisions to the detriment of the accused and therefore, this revision application may be entertained and the impugned order may be set aside.