RAHUL JANGID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dtd. 25/10/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan First (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No.60/2024, by which learned trial Court has ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/20, 8/22C and 8/27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case against the petitioner has been made merely on the basis of suspicion. The order impugned dtd. 25/10/2024 of learned trial Court is patently illegal, erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. A false case has been made out against the petitioner only with a motive to arrest him. Learned counsel also submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are highly interested and narrated the story in highly flimsy manner. Learned counsel contended that the contraband in question has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, therefore, no case under the provisions of NDPS Act is made out. It has also been contended that the mandatory provision of Sec. 50A of NDPS Act has been violated because the order for authorization of the controlled delivery operation has been issued by Deputy Director General, Narcotics Control Bureau (for short 'NCB'), whereas, as per the mandatory provision of Sec. 50A of NDPS Act only Director General, NCB can pass an order to undertake the controlled delivery operation. It has also been contended that as per the notification No.S.O.3900(E) issued in the Gazette of India dtd. 30/10/2019, Officer of rank of Inspector can file the charge-sheet against the accused, whereas, in this case charge- sheet against the petitioner has been filed by a Junior Intelligence Officer, who was not authorized to file the charge- sheet. Learned trial Court has ordered to frame the charges against the petitioner in a very flimsy manner, without applying its judicial mind, therefore, the impugned order of framing charges under various Sec. of NDPS Act is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged. Therefore, the petition be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha in Criminal Appeal No. 2646 of 2024, decided on 26/11/2024, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (2) SCC 67, Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs. State of Goa, (2005) 9 SCC 773, Madan Lal & Anr. vs. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465, Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590, State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 6853/2023 (Junaid Hussain Haveri vs. Union of India) and connected matters decided on 12/9/2023 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Rajashtan in case of Gopal Gadari and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 SCC Online raj 3989.