NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 05/12/2018 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mandsaur, in S.S.T. No.01/2018, whereby the trial Court has framed charges under Section 8 / 15 , 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 04/07/2017, police Afjalpur, Mandsaur received source information that illegal poppy straw is being transported in tempo truck Toofan (Silver Colour) bearing Registration No. MP 13 BA 1290 from the house of Gurjar, which is situtated at Bherugar and going towards Jabhua through Sitamau and Dingaonmali. On the basis of this information, Police after complying with necessary formalities, reached the spot, found tempo truck Toofan (Silver Colour) bearing Registration No. MP 13 BA 1290 coming from Sitamau and they tried to intercept vehicle, however, the driver diverted the vehicle towards agricultural field. Therefore police force chased the vehicle and apprehended the same in between time two persons got down from the cleaner seat of the vehicle and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, they saw one person in the driver seat, briefed him about the secret information and asked his name, who stated his name as Sachin. During search, total quantity of 1 quintal and 30 Kgs., of poppy straw was recovered from the vehicle. After completing necessary formalities Police arrested Sachin and recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in which he deposed that the contra-band was loaded by the present applicant along with other co-accused persons. On that basis, the applicant has also been implicated in the present crime.

(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 co-accused Sachin, in which he stated that the contra-band was loaded by the present applicant along with 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 framing charges be set aside and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid charges.