RATANSINGH VAKHTWARSINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A F.I.R. has been filed by the Shri Shafiq Ahamed Gulam Ahamed Pathan, Inspector of Police against the petitioner and others alleging that they were in possession of the brown sugar on 01.02.1990. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that contraband articles were seized from the shop of one Motiram. It is also alleged that he had got several information about the persons indulging in illicit trade of Narcotic and one of the informants informed him that one Ratansingh, the petitioner herein had come to him with proposition to sale brown sugar and he had also asked this informant to bring the customers, Inspector of Police had assured the petitioner that he would try to find the find the customers for his drugs pretending to be a dealer in Narcotic Substances. He had instructed the informant to find out Ratansingh (Petitioner herein) as to who were other persons associated with this transaction and according to information gathered by the informant, it was found that one Jaysingh and Mortiram were partners of Ratansingh in the Narcotic dealings. It is revealed from the First Information Report that the Narcotic Cell had conducted raid on 01.02.1990 in the presence of panchas and recovered all contraband goods from the shop of Mortiram. In the panchanama, it is stated that at the time of search, Ratansingh, petitioner here in was also present in the shop. It may be remembered that he who had informed the informant that he is dealing with the Narcotic drugs. With these materials, the F.I.R. has been filed and Criminal Prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that he has no connection with the Narcotic transaction as alleged in the F.I.R. Mere presence will not be sufficient to attribute the illegal act of Narcotic business against the petitioner. It is the matter for the trial court to examine this defence of the petitioner. However, it is not the matter to be taken into account to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) In the result, I find no reason to interfere at this stage. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Rule discharged accordingly.