SANDEEP MEHTA Vs. SAHDEV BISHNOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the accused-petitioner Sahdev for assailing the order dated 18.1.2018, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur ordered framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/15 and in the alternative under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act; and the order dated 1.8.2019, whereby the charge aforesaid was read over to the accused petitioner.

(2.) Mr. D.L. Rawla, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained. The recovery of the contraband poppy straw weighing 36 quintal 95 kg and 300 gm was effected by the SHO, Police Station Maulasar from the truck No. HR-45-5428, from which the co-accused Vijaypal was apprehended, but one other person managed to make good his escape. When the seizure officer interrogated Vijaypal, he divulged that the person, who had ran away was Kuldeep Vishnoi. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that during further investigation, Vijaypal was interrogated and in his interrogation note, he alleged that Sahdev (the petitioner herein) was the person responsible for loading the contraband poppy straw in the offending vehicle. He urged that the interrogation note of an accused recorded by a police officer is hit by the embargo contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and cannot be read in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. In addition thereto, his contention was that even if the interrogation note is considered to be a confession, the same cannot be read against the co-accused. He placed reliance on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in Chirag Dave Vs. State of Rajasthan Through SHO, P.S. Bicchiwada, 2019 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1105 in support of his contentions and urged that the order framing charge dated 18.1.2018 is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced at bar and urged that the charge as against the petitioner has not been framed by the Trial Court solely on the basis of the interrogation note of the co-accused. During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected evidence to the effect that the accused was escorting the truck No. HR-45-5428 (from which the poppy straw was recovered) by his Bolero vehicle No. RJ-13-C-1618. He, thus, urged that the involvement of the accused in the crime is well-established and the Trial Court was absolutely justified in framing charge against the petitioner as above.