Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Mamta vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4802/2022
Smt. Mamta W/o Shanti Lal Dhakar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Shreepura (Pemakhera) Police Station Kanera District
Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through CBN
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birbal Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Rai, Spl. PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/08/2022
1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 30.06.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS
Cases No.1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial
Court') vide which petitioner's application dated 27.05.2022 for
issuance of appropriate direction to the Investigating Officer to
record petitioner's statement pursuant to the notice under Section
67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the contraband substance (opium) weighing 15 kgs 800 gms
(net); ₹2,50,000/- cash; 306 kgs poppy-straw and a pickup
vehicle were seized from petitioner's premises.
3. It is informed by the petitioner that though the Investigating
Officer is not treating the petitioner to be accused and is
proceeding against the petitioner's husband - Shanti Lal only, but
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4802/2022]
a notice under Section 67 of the Act came to be issued to the
petitioner.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Bishnoi, that pursuant to the notice
under Section 67 of the Act, the petitioner wanted to give her
statement but she was not called for recording of statement.
Hence, the petitioner moved the application before the trial Court
for issuance of requisite direction to the Investigating Officer to
record her statement, but the same has been rejected by the trial
Court vide an unreasoned order.
5. Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in
light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2013)
16 SCC 31, statements under Section 67 of the Act are not
binding and therefore, if the Investigating Officer does not
consider it proper to record petitioner's statement under Section
67 of the Act, the Court cannot issue such direction.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Indisputably, the Investigating Officer has issued a notice
under Section 67 of the Act to the petitioner. The petitioner, in
whose presence the contraband substance(s) were
recovered/seized and vehicle was seized, wishes to give her
statement, without she being an accused.
8. In the opinion of this Court, if the notice under Section 67 of
the Act has been issued and the petitioner wants to give her
version before the Investigating Officer, the justice, equity and fair
play demands that her statement be recorded.
9. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4802/2022]
10. The impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the trial
Court is quashed and set aside.
11. The Investigating Officer is directed to summon the
petitioner and record her statement pursuant to notice under
Section 67 of the Act in accordance with law. Needless to observe
that the same will be considered at appropriate level in
accordance with law.
12. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
170-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
