BANSHILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act in Special Sessions Trial No.06/2014 dated 03.01.2015 whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges against the present applicant Banshilal S/o Mangilal Porwal under section 8/29 NDPS Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution story, on 13.06.2014 the station in-charge of Police Station Bilpank, District Ratlam received a source information at about 8.00 pm in the night that the truck bearing registration No.MP09-GF-4922 which was being driven by accused Anand Charan who is a resident of Maharashtra, contraband substance was being transported from Ratlam. Acting on the source information, the station in-charge of the Bilpank police station formed a police party and the vehicle was intercepted. During the search, it was found that 29 quintal and 61 kgs. of poppy straw was being transported in 72 gunny bags. After completion of formalities, the driver of the vehicle Anand Charan was arrested. During investigation, said Anand Charan gave an information to the police under section 27 of Evidence Act that the contraband was loaded in his truck by co-accused persons Rama, Lala, Lakkha @ Santoor from the mobile shop of the present applicant who is referred to as Porwal Seth. Subsequently, the present applicant was also implicated in the matter as accused and by the impugned order, the learned Special Judge framed charges as aforesaid section against him.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order, this revision is filed on the ground that the information given by the co-accused Anand Charan to the police hit by the provisions of section 25 of Evidence Act. Apart from the information given by the co-accused no other legal evidence available against him. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there are many persons in the locality who write their surname as Porwal and this present applicant cannot be said to be the same person who was involved in the crime. On these two main grounds, inter-alia, he submits that the order framing charges against the present applicant is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and present applicant be discharged.