VINOD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused of having committing an offence under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (henceforth to be referred as the N.D.P.S. Act in short), the petitioner has challenged the cognizance order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Chabra, District Baran.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 7.7.2005, the S.H.O. Shri Sudhir Kumar Yadav P.S. Harnoda Sahaji, District Baran, submitted a report wherein he stated that while he and his police party were out on inspection in Taragarh valley, they saw two persons walking with plastic white bag. When these two persons saw the Police Jeep, they started running, therefore, the police chased them. Constable, Dharmendra Singh, caught one of the men, who revealed his name as Vinod Kumar. Since Vinod Kumar did not know the name of the other person, he could not reveal the same to the police. When the said plastic bag was searched, it contained almost 4 kgs. of opium including the weight of plastic bag. Since, Vinod Kumar could not show any license, therefore, the police registered a case for offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to the S.H.O. Jodha Ram, P.S. Chipa Barod. After a thorough investigation, having recorded the statement of eye-witnesses, the police submitted a detailed negative Final Report. According to the police, Bhoora Lal and Urmila Bai had taken their goats for grazing in the area where Vinod was caught. According to their statement, Vinod is a shepherd boy from their village who was also grazing his goats alongwith them. Both of them, alongwith Vinod, saw a man running with a white plastic bag. The man threw away the plastic bag. Vinod, being curious, went and picked up the bag and started looking into it. It is at the moment that the police party arrived and caught Vinod with the bag in his hand. According to them Vinod told the police that he had picked up the bag from the ground and the bag did not belong to him. However, despite his explanation, the police had arrested him for offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Believing these eye-witnesses and the statement of other villagers, who corroborated these eye-witnesses, the police submitted the said negative Final Report. However without discussing the negative Final Report in detail, vide impugned order dated 13.9.2005, the learned Special Judge took cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that according to the statements of Bhoora Ram and Urmila Bai and according to the statements of the other villagers, including the sarpanch, the petitioner is merely a shepherd boy who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Every morning he takes his goats out for grazing and it is only his curiosity that has landed him in trouble with the police. He has further contended that the police had recorded the statement of eye-witnesses, like Bhoora Ram and Urmila Bai, both of whom had deposed about the petitioner's innocence. Secondly after the police had submitted the negative Final Report, there was no protest petition and no further evidence to make out a case, even in a prima facie manner against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has committed an illegality in taking cognizance against him. Thirdly, once the negative Final Report was submitted, the learned Special Judge was legally bound to reveal reasons for non-accepting of the negative Final Report. However, the learned Special Judge has not revealed any reasons in the' impugned order for non-acceptance of the negative Final Report. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.