JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This a revision petition by two accused Jagdish and Bahadur in case FIR No. 112/94 Police Station Pratapgarh under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sessions case No. 248/94) pending before the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh wherein charge has been framed against them under couple of sections of that Act.

(2.) The prosecution case runs as follows: On 25.3.1995 at or about 4.15 a. m. pursuant of secret information Additional S. P. Pratapgarh with a Police party held nakabandi in the area of village Bilesari. Shortly thereafter a jeep driven by Bahadur accused in which Jagdish accused, Narain Singh and Gajendra Singh were sitting was intercepted. Bahadur and Jagdish accused took to their heels and made good their escape while Narain Singh and Gajendra Singh aforesaid were nabbed at the spot. On examination the jeep floor had some traces of a substance which to the police party looked and smelt like opium. Subsequent thereto the same day the police raided the house of Jagdish accused in village Dhander where he lives with his parents. At the time of raid only his mother was at home. A search of the house led to the recovery of 4 KGs. and 800 gms. of opium in a bucket with 400 grms. of opium in a polythene bag lying nearby. It turned out during investigation that father of Jagdish accused was a licensed opium grower holding licence No. 33 and that on 16th, 17 and 18th of that month he had as required under the Rules deposited varying quantities of his produce (opium) with the Lambardar and that such deposits had been made by him through his son Jagdish accused. According to the prosecution the 400 gms. of opium in the polythene bag found in the house as afore-noticed was contraband opium. Now as per the notification issued by the Dy. Narcotics Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Kota the opium growers of that area were required to deposit their entire produce by the period from 3rd of May to 8th May, 1994. It is well settled that suspicion however strong is no substitute for proof. In the instant case no matter how viewed there is not an iota of evidence to show that the 400 gms. of opium in the polythene bag was indeed contraband opium. That being so there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused petitioners and the impugned order of the trial Judge directing framing of charge against the accused petitioners is unsustainable.

(3.) In this view of the matter the order dated 4.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases framing charge against the accused petitioner is set aside after acceptance of this revision petition and in the result the accused petitioners are discharged in the case.