Pramod Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7295 Chatt

                                                1

                                                                                             NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                  CRR No. 1526 of 2019
    Pramod Nayak S/o Ramchandra Nayak, aged about 32 years, R/o
     Village Lathi, Barmahpur, P.S. Sadar, District Ganjam, Odisha., District :
     Ganjam, Orissa                                           --- Applicant.

                                            Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh through The Station House Officer, Police Station
     City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
     Chhattisgarh                                         --- Respondent.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant : Ms. Maya Chaturbhujani on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.

For Respondent /State : Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, PL.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

05/12/2022

1. The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated

03.06.2019 which is the order of framing of charge under Section 20 (b) (ii-

C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS,

Bilaspur in Special Cr.Case (NDPS) No.11/2019.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this revision has been

preferred relying on the preposition held by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Bhagawan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1976) 1 SCC 15

that since the informant himself is the investigator therefore, the charge-

sheet is bad in law. She fairly submits that the said judgment is overruled

by the Constitutional Bench in Mukesh Singh vs State (Narcotic Branch

Of Delhi) reported in AIR (2020) 10 SCC 120 in which it has been

categorically held that 'in a case where the informant himself is the

investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on

the ground of bias or the like factor'. So, considering this development,

counsel do not want to pursue the matter further.

3. In the light of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Supra) and considering the

aforesaid submission made by counsel for the applicant, this revision

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Ajay