STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Ss. 397/401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned order dated 23.8.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimla, discharging the accused for the commission of offence under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 9.4.1994 at about 3.30 PM, Inspector Ravinder Sharma alongwith ASI Pramad Shukla, constables Sham Lal, Sanjiv Kumar and Mahidhar was on Patrol duty near State Bank of India, Regional Office, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. When the patrol party reached near Poabo road at Shankli, they noticed one person carrying a polythene envelope in his hand on seeing the police party, the said person turned back and tried to give slip to the police party. However, he was over -powered by the police and apprehended. The police asked him about his identity, who disclosed his name Rajinder Singh. The police after taking his consent in writing searched the person of the accused. On search, 1 Kg. 50 grams 'Charas' was recovered from his possession. Out of the recovered "Charas", two samples weighing 25 grams each were drawn and the samples and the remaining "Charas' were duly sealed. After completing the entire proceedings, Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the case through constable Mahidhar. On the basis of the said Ruqa First Information Report No. 115/94 dated 9.4.1924 was recorded at Police Station Sadar, Shimla. During the search of the accused, Assistant Superintendent of Police alongwith constable Sanjiv Kumar also reached the spot. After the completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted before the Sessions Judge requesting him to frame charge against the accused. The Sessions Judge, Shimla after having gone through the charge -sheet and statements made by the witnesses before the police as also other documents came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for framing a charge against the accused and he accordingly discharged him, apparently, under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for short the Code). The State of H.P., feeling aggrieved against the impugned order of discharge has preferred this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and the ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by the Sessions Judge under Sec. 227 of the Code.