Jogendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9318 MP

                       1
                                                      Cr.R. No.2162/2022

              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     BENCH AT INDORE

                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                     ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022



              CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2162 of 2022

  Between:-

   JOGENDRA S/O KUNWAR SINGH PARIHAR , AGED ABOUT 40
   YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER HOUSE NO. 51, SHEETAL
1.
   PALACE, M.R. 5 ROAD. (MADHYA PRADESH)

   ISHRAR S/O AJIJ SHAH , AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2. LABORER AHEAD OF KHAKHARI PURA MASZID, TARANA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI HIMANSHU THAKUR)

  AND

  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICERQ
  THROUGH POLICE STATION CHIMANGANJ, (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY MS ARCHANA MAHESHWARI, GOVT. ADVOCATE)


        This application coming on for judgment this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:

                           JUDGMENT

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.,

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed against the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by

Cr.R. No.2162/2022

the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act) Ujjain, District Ujjain in Crime No.135/2022 registered at Police Station Chimanganj, Ujjain for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. for grant of default bail has been rejected.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 16.02.2022 on the basis of secret information, police made a raid at the house of applicant No.1 Jogendra and recovered 21 kg ganja from the conscious possession of applicants as well as co-accused Pancham. During investigation, applicants moved an application before trial Court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. for releasing the applicants as investigation has not been completed within the prescribed limit of 90 days which was rejected vide impugned order on the ground that quantity of contraband seized from the possession of the applicants as well as co-accused Pancham was commercial quantity, therefore, as per provision of Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act, limitation period for filing challan in the aforesaid matter is 180 days.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per prosecution case itself at the time of incident, applicant- Jogendra was found having 12 kg 300 gm ganja while applicant Ishrar was found having 4 kg 500 gm and co-accused Pancham was found having 4 kg 200 gm ganja and the same were seized vide separate seizure memos. Contraband said to be seized from the possession of each of the applicants were non-commercial quantity and the learned trial Court has committed error in holding the fact that the applicants and co- accused person were having conscious possession over all the

Cr.R. No.2162/2022

contraband said to be seized from the applicants and co-accused person. Learned counsel also relied the order of this Court passed in case of Dinesh Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of MP in MCRC No.38064/2021.

4. Learned Govt. Advocate for respondent/State has opposed the application with the submission that admittedly applicants and co- accused persons were present at the house of applicant - Jogendra and were found in conscious possession of whole contraband seized from each of them. Therefore, in the present case, limitation period for completion of investigation is 180 days as mentioned in Section 36(A) (4) of NDPS Act.

5. Applicants were having conscious possession over the contraband seized from each of them as well as co-accused person have to be determine with reference to the factual backdrops of the case. In the present case it has specifically been mentioned that at the time of raid, applicants as well as co-accused Pancham were found in applicant-Jogendra's house. Applicant was found having 12 kg 300 gm ganja while applicant Ishrar was found having 4 kg 500 gm and co- accused Pancham was found having 4 kg 200 gm ganja, respectively. Facts of the case relied by learned counsel for the applicant are entirely different wherein applicants were enlarged on bail on the ground that application for extension of period for filing charge sheet was not filed by the Public Prosecutor but by the investigation officer. Matter is still under investigation, therefore, at this stage learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding that prima facie applicants were having conscious possession over all the contraband seized on the spot at the

Cr.R. No.2162/2022

time of incident which is commercial quantity and the applicants are not entitled for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that investigation has not been completed within 90 days as limitation period for completion of investigation is 180 days as mentioned in Section 36(A)(4) of NDPS Act.

Accordingly, this revision petition devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge

vibha/-

VIBHA PACHORI 2022.07.15 10:14:33 +05'30'