UNION OF INDIA Vs. ALTAF HUSSAIN ALIAS JUMAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the Union of India through the Assistant Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow, is directed against the order dated 23-11-1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi, whereby Altaf Hussain alias Jumai and Najeem, two of the 15 accused, were discharged under Section 227, Cr. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 162 of 1996 (State v. Abrar Ahmad and others).

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are as under :On 26-3-1996, Union of India through the Assistant Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'Narcotics Bureau') filed a criminal complaint against 15 accused, viz. Abrar Ahmad, Abdul Mabood, Mohammad Arif, all residents of district Barabanki, U. P., Ayyub, resident of Lucknow, Altaf Hussain alias Jumai, opposite party No. 1, resident of Calcutta (West Bengal), Quddus, Faheem, Meinuddin, Javed, Hazi Anwar, Hafiz Afjal, Tayyab, Zubber, Aqul alias Munnu alias Munney, all residents of district Barabanki, U. P., and Najeem resident of district Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh), opposite party No. 2, for offences committed under Sections 8/21, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The copy of the complaint is Annexure '1' to the revision-petition.

(3.) The Narcotics Bureau in its complaint has alleged that the offences relate to preparation and transportation of 53 Kgs. (Kilograms) of Heroin, which was recovered by the Central Bureau of Narcotics of 29-12-1995 at 8.00 p.m. from Truck No. UP-78B/7554 on Jamania Road near Sayyed Raza Crossing, Varanasi, which was illegally being transported to Calcutta for its sale and, thus, all the accused, named in the complaint, had committed the offence of illegal trafficking of Narcotics Drugs, which is completely prohibited, and is an offence under the Act. It has been alleged in the complaint that Quddus, Fahim, Moinuddin, Javed, Hazi Anwar, Hafiz Afjail, Tayyab, Zuber, Aqil and Najeem, accused, were absconding while the remaining 5 accused were apprehended and as such the complaint against the aforesaid 15 accused. Subsequently, however, Najeem, accused No. 15, (opposite party No. 2,) was arrested by the M. P. Police on 8-4-1996 in pursuance of the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial Court. Till the date of filing of the complaint, the remaining 9 accused were absconding and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. P. C. were being taken by the trial Court. It is alleged that after the filing of the complaint some of the accused moved petitions for quashing the complaint against them on the ground that no offence had been committed and there was no evidence against them, but their petitions were rejected vide orders dated 21-5-1996 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1615 of 1996 in the matter of Zuber v. Union of India (Annexure '3' to the petition), and the order dated 28-6-1996 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 350 of 1996 in the matter of Fahim and Quddus v. Union of India and another (Annexure '4' to the petition). It is alleged that since 9 of the accused persons were still absconding, their trial be separated, while trial of the remaining accused was pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, for the aforesaid offences under the Act, vide Criminal Case No. 162 of 1996 (Annexure '1' to the petition). Subsequently, however, Altaf Hussain alias Jumai and Najeem Khan, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, were detained under the provisions of PIT N.D.P.S. Act, 1988, vide orders of the State Government dated 25-10-1996 (Annexures '5' and '6' to the petition. It is further contended that at the time of framing of the charge the defence conceded in respect of framing of the charge against Abrar Ahmad, Abdul Mabood, Mohammad Arif and Ayyub, while pressed for the discharge of two accused, viz. Altaf Hussain alias Jumai and Najeem, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2.