RAJDHARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Rajdhari Yadav against the order dtd. 29/10/2021 passed by the Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad in Misc. Case No.381 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.19 of 2021, under Ss. 8/20/27A/ 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Lucknow NCB, District Prayagraj whereby the application of the revisionist for release of Tata Mini Truck No.GJ 16 AU 9781 was rejected.

(2.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Tata Mini Truck No. GJ 16 AU 9781 of the revisionist was being repaired by the mechanic near Naribari Police Chowki. The STF force detained his driver, helper and vehicle from there on 27/5/2021 at about 3:00 PM. Nothing was recovered from the truck of the revisionist. The recovery was made from the Eicher Mini Truck but the police let that vehicle go after getting huge amount and illegally implicated his truck by taking his truck to Police Station Shankargarh, at a distance of 50 km from the Naribari Police Chowki. From the spot nothing is shown to be recovered from his truck. After planting the alleged ganja the arresting officer badly damaged the mangoes loaded upon his vehicle and looted the cash of Rs.25,000.00 from the driver and challaned the driver and helper in the present case. He is not named in the complaint. He has neither committed any offence nor has any concern with the aforesaid case. He is wrongly and illegally being implicated in the present case on the basis of the fake recovery. The Special Judge N.D.P.S. Act/ Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him according to the provisions of law. The impugned order is totally against the provisions of law, hence, the revision be allowed and the impugned order rejecting the release application of his vehicle No. GJ 16 AU 9781 be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.1926 of 2018, Dhirendra Singh Thapa Vs. State of U.P. and another and has argued that in that case the Court allowed the revision, impugned order was set aside, and release application was allowed, hence, on the basis of the said judgment the impugned order is prayed to be set aside.