VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 20.03.2013 framing charge under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act).

(2.) The facts borne out from the petition may now be noticed. On 22.03.2012 the police party intercepted Amar Singh. On checking 400 grams of intoxicated powder was recovered from him. FIR No. 30 dated 22.03.2012 was registered under Section 22 of the Act at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur. On interrogation, Amar Singh disclosed that he had purchased the intoxicant powder from the present petitioner. On the basis thereof, a raid was conducted at his shop. Nothing incriminating was recovered during raid but he was arrested. Challan against both the accused was filed as noticed above. The trial Court ordered framing of charge under Section 22 of the Act against the present petitioner vide the impugned order. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) The precise grievance of the petitioner is that neither he was arrested at the spot nor anything was recovered from him. Further, his involvement was only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused when he was in custody and it did not lead to any discovery and was hit by provisions of Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. It has also been contended that the charge has been framed in routine manner with a number of errors in the dates and the petitioner himself has been shown in possession of contraband, which is factually incorrect. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Ravindran @ John Vs. The Superintendent of Customs,2007 3 RAJ 55and Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund & Ors., 2009 12 SCC 161, of this Court in Madan Mohan @ David Vs. State of Haryana, 1997 1 RCR(Cri) 713and Jai Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 3 AICLR 436and of Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Vs. State through Delhi Administration, 1997 CrLJ 2106. In the reply filed by the State, it was pleaded that the petitioner was involved in the case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused and no contraband was recovered from him. However, during enquiry his involvement was established and there is a conspiracy between them and he was arrested in the case.