PATRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner accused Patram against the order dated 3.6.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.3/2006 whereby, the learned trial Court directed recalling of the Seizure Officer Vikram Singh for further examination by exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution failed to exhibit the Muddamal during the course of the examination in chief of the witness. A specific plea was raised before the trial Court on behalf of the accused at the stage of final arguments that failure to exhibit the Muddamal entitled the accused to an acquittal. The trial Court rather than accepting the said argument, acted in a totally arbitrary fashion and without there being any prayer of the prosecution, proceeded to direct recalling of the Seizure Officer to fill up the lacuna left by the prosecution. He thus prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.