MAMPY NAMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Janardhan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) The prayer for discharge under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. made by the petitioner accused on 15/2/2025 in Special (NDPS) No.14/2025 has been rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS), West Tripura, Agartala vide impugned order dtd. 13/3/2025. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this instant revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) The Airport P.S. Case No.2024/ARP/035 was instituted on 23/4/2024 under Sec. 21(C)/25/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 against one Sri Anjan Shil, son of Late Gopal Shil. It alleged that in the courtyard of Sri Anjan Shil, the alleged contraband articles, two numbers of documents in the name of Shri Anjan Shil and one Maruti Van bearing No.TR-01-E-0605 (blue colour) were seized from the house of the said Shri Anjan Shil in presence of available witnesses. The FIR is at Annexure - 1 and the seizure list is at Annexure - 2. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet bearing Airport PS C/S No.62 of 2024 on 30/10/2024, under Sec. 21(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the present accused petitioner Sri Apu Saha. The investigating agency later submitted a prayer for custodial trial of the accused. By the impugned order dtd. 13/3/2025, charges were framed against the petitioner under Sec. 21(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 after going through the materials collected by the investigation. Petitioner has alleged that except one omnibus statement of witness namely Ratanlal Ghosh son of Late Dhirendra Chandra Ghosh under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. no other evidence has been found against the petitioner. Moreover, no such person resides in the locality at the address mentioned in the statement of Ratanlal Ghosh. It has been revealed that Ratanlal Ghosh is a man of Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District who does not know the actual facts of the case. He cannot identify the accused petitioner also. This has been made the basis for framing of the charge.