GIRIRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 04/06/2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (NDPS Act), Jaora, District Ratlam, in S.S.T. No.15/2018, by which the trial Court has framed charges under Section 8(C)/18(C), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'The Act, 1985') against the applicant.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 15/04/2018, police received a source information from informant that one eicher truck bearing Registration No. MP 09 GF 1015 was going towards Mandsaur to Ratlam loaded with garlic and they kept illegal poppy straw in the truck. Thereafter, Police prepared necessary punchnama, called two independent witnesses and reached the spot. After some time as per the information, Police force saw one eicher truck bearing Registration No. MP 09 GF 1015, coming towards Mandsaur and after seeing the Police force two persons fled away from the vehicle. During search of the vehicle, 124 bags of garlic and 69 bags of poppy straw was found. Total quantity of 15 quintal, 16 kgs., 500 grams of poppy straw was recovered from the truck. After that Police registered FIR bearing crime No.122/2018, arrested Firoz Khan, the owner of the vehicle and his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded. On the basis of his disclosure statement the driver and cleaner of the vehicle were arrested and on interrogation cleaner Bhagwatilal informed that at the instance of the present applicant Girirajsingh @ Ganganarayan and other co-accused persons, namely Mittusingh and Azaz, the aforesaid contraband was being transported. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and other accused persons for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that the present applicant was not present on the spot and no contra-band has been recovered from his possession. The complicity of the applicant is alleged only on the basis of the disclosure statement, said to have been made by Bhagwatilal, to the effect that the contraband was being transported at the instance of the present applicant and other co-accused persons. However, no fact as such, could be discovered on the basis of his statement, therefore, there is no legally admissible evidence within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'The Act') amounting to discovery of fact. Apart from this there is no other evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the present crime. Hence he prayed that impugned order of the trial court be set aside and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid offences.