SHARVAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 13-5-2009 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases) Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has taken cognizance of offences under Section 8 (c)/15(c) read with Sections 25 and 35 of the NDPS Act ('the Act' for short) and has summoned the petitioner through warrant of arrest, the petitioner has approached this Court. The facts of the case are that on 13-5-2007, around 4:00 p.m., the SHO of Police Station Mangliyawas left with a police party for checking vehicles on the road. Around 4:15 p.m. they saw a black Bolero Jeep coming from the side of Naseerabad. Three persons were sitting in the jeep. The police signaled the jeep to stop. However, the jeep driver accelerated the jeep and drove off. Suspecting something was amiss, the police chased the jeep. The driver left the National Highway and turned the jeep on to a narrow road leading towards the village Lidi. The driver and the two other passengers abandoned the jeep in a jungle between the villages Lidi and Lamana. They fled from the place. When the police searched the jeep, they discovered fourteen bags full of doda post powder. Since the persons were illegally transporting contraband drugs, therefore, offences under Section 8/15 of the Act was made out. In order to carry out the recovery proceedings, around 5:00 PM two independent witnesses were sought. Moreover, Mr. Dharampal, Constable 569, was sent for bringing weighing balance and the weights. After weighing, it was discovered that the bags contained 292 kg. and 800 gms. of doda post powder. The police took out a sample of 250 gms from one bag for the purpose of sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It also took out 250 gms. of the contraband drug as control sample. After the recovery proceedings were over, the police seized the jeep and brought the jeep and the contraband drug to the police station. At the police station, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, SHO lodged a formal FIR against unknown persons for offences under Section 8/15 of the Act.

(2.) During the course of investigation, on 17-4-2008, the police arrested one Rajuram; on 14-9-2008, the police arrested one Jabbar Singh, the brother of the present petitioner. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Rajuram for offences under Section 8/15 of the Act, and against Jabbar Singh for offences under Section 8/25 of the Act before the Special Court (NDPS Act) Cases, Ajmer. They kept the investigation pending against one Narendra alias Nenu as he could not be arrested. After taking cognizance against Rajuram and Jabbar Singh, the case was scheduled to be listed on 3-11-2008 for charge arguments. However, the charge arguments were heard on 17-4-2009. The charge order was scheduled to be pronounced on 21-4-2009.

(3.) However, even prior to the framing of charge, one Hanuman Singh, the registered owner of the jeep, filed an application under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code (*the Code', for short) before the learned Judge for seeking the custody of the jeep. But vide order dated 17-3-2009, the learned Judge dismissed the said application. The learned Judge held that since the jeep had been sold by Hanuman Singh to the present petitioner, Sharvan Kumar, therefore, the application for custody should have been moved by Sharvan Kumar and not by Hanuman Singh. On 30-3-2009, the petitioner, Sharvan Kumar filed an application under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code for seeking the custody of the jeep. The application was filed on the ground that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Hanuman Singh on 31-10-2005 for buying the jeep from him. Ever since then, the jeep has been with the petitioner's brother, Jabbar Singh as the petitioner was serving in the Indian Army. But the learned Judge neither passed the charge order, nor passed any order on the custody application. Instead, vide order dated 13-5-2009, the learned Judge took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Section 8 (c)/ 15(c) read with Sections 25 and 35 of the Act. The learned Judge has summoned the petitioner through arrest warrant. Hence, this petition before this Court.