VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 8/15(c) read with Section 25 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 29.10.2010, Santosh Singh, S.H.O. P.S. Gulabpura recorded a Parcha Bayan along with Fard in which the details of seizure of poppy husk (Doda Chura) from a Bolero car bearing Registration No.07-7A-1120 was drawn. It was alleged that on that day around 11:30 AM, while checking traffic on the Bhilwara-Ajmer road, one Bolero came from the side of Bhilwara. In the said Bolero, three persons were sitting. However, seeing the police, the Bolero turned towards Aasind road. Since the Bolero had turned suddenly, it aroused suspicion of the police officers. Therefore, the police officers chased the Bolero car. The three persons jumped out of the Bolero car, and tried to make their escape good. However, out of the three persons, the police nabbed one person, who eventually disclosed his name as Raju Ram alias Ram Kumar Meghwal. He further informed the police that the driver of the Bolero car was one Bajranglal Brahmin and the other person sitting in the car was Nanu Ram. When the Bolero was searched, 15 gunny bags of poppy husk weighing 260.200 kgs were discovered. Therefore, the police recorded a FIR for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet against Raju Ram alias Ram Kumar for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and against the present petitioner for offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. It filed the chargesheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. for the co-accused, Bajranglal Sharma. Vide order dated 04.01.2012, the learned Judge framed charges against the petitioner, as aforementioned. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Vishwajeet Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the police had filed a chargesheet against petitioner for offence under Section 8/25 NDPS Act, the learned Judge was unjustified in framing charge against the present petitioner for offence under Section 8/15 (c) read with Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Secondly, there is no offence worth the name to show that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 8/15(c) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.