BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner Baljeet Singh with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet filed against him before the special court NDPS Act cases after investigation of the FIR No.111/2016 registered at the Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/25 of the NDPS Act and Sections 482 and 483 IPC.

(2.) Facts in brief are that Shri Mahendra Singh, Sub-Inspector and his team of police officials of Police Station Gulabpura were conducting a routine nakabandi on the National Highway No.79. It is alleged that at around 110 am., the police party flagged down a suspicious looking white colored Safari car bearing registration No.MH-04-CT-5200. The driver of the car sped the car away in an attempt to escape from the nakabandi. The vehicle collided against the barricades erected by the police party. The driver abandoned the vehicle about 100 mtrs. from the barricades and tried to escape. Two constables Shrawan Kumar and Sanjay Kumar were sent in his pursuit. Meanwhile, the car was inspected. It bore signs of damage owing to collision with the barricades. On looking from the rear window, some gunny bags/ plastic bags were seen lying in the vehicle and poppy straw like smell was emanating therefrom. The two constables who had been sent to pursue the fled driver of the vehicle brought back a man who identified himself to be Baljeet Singh son of Gurucharan Singh (the petitioner herein) . He was having few injuries and upon inquiry being made, Baljeet Singh told that he got injured by a fall while trying to escape from the police party. On further inquiry being made about the bags lying in the suspect vehicle, Baljeet Singh replied that the same contained poppy straw. The offending vehicle was brought back to the nakabandi point and search thereof was conducted. It was found that a total of 107 Kgs. of poppy straw packed in gunny bags was concealed in the vehicle being driven by the present petitioner. The requisite seizure, sampling procedure was carried out at the spot. While the car was being searched, a duplicate number plate bearing Registration No.HR-26-BF-9588 was also recovered therefrom. The accused was arrested and thereafter, the Sub-Inspector Mahendra Singh returned to the police station and presented a report whereupon, an FIR No.111/2016 was registered at the Police Station Gulabpura for the offence under Section Sections 8/15, 8/25 of the NDPS Act and Sections 482 and 483 IPC and investigation commenced. On an inquiry being made about the second registration number from the concerned Transport Office, a reply was received that the car was owned by the petitioner and approval to transfer the registration had been issued. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/25 of the NDPS Act and Sections 482 and 483 IPC. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this misc. petition with a prayer for quashing of the FIR, the charge-sheet and all proceedings sought to be taken against him in furtherance thereof.

(3.) Mr. S.D. Purohit learned counsel representing the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh, (1994) AIR(Supreme Court) 1872 and this Court's judgment in the case of Gopal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3073/2014) decided on 01.09.2017 and contended that ex-facie, as the seizure was made by Mahendra Singh, Sub-Inspector who was not posted as incharge of the Police Station Gulabpura at the relevant point of time, therefore, the entire seizure and search proceedings are vitiated because the same were effected by an officer not expressly authorised in this regard of the governing act. He urged that Section 42 of the NDPS Act clearly applies to the case at hand and since, the seizure officer was not authorised under Section 41/42 of the Act to conduct the search proceedings, manifestly, the seizure is bad in the eye of law and the entire proceedings are vitiated. On these grounds, he implored the Court to quash the impugned charge-sheet and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner.