Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Damaram vs State on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 372/2020
Damaram S/o Shri Darojram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Lilsar, Chouhtan, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Hardev Ram Bishnoi (on VC)
For Respondent : Mr. Arun Kumar P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 29/11/2022
Pronounced on 01/12/2022
1. The Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the
order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge,
NDPS Cases, Barmer in Case No. 13/2019 (arising out of FIR
No.467/2018 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District
Barmer), whereby the learned Court below framed charges
against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 8/15, 17,
18, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act 1959.
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner, are that on 30.10.2018 at 3:26 PM, Shri
Lunaram, Incharge of Police Station, Kotwali, Barmer received an
information regarding certain contraband, and on the same day at
4:10 PM, the said Shri Lunaram, along with a police team
(Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 11:44:34 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-372/2020]
conducted a raid at the residence of the accused-petitioner, and
upon compliance of the necessary provisions of law, the police
team carried out the search at the said residential premises; a
Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. RJ.16/UA-2474, and a
Scooty bearing registration no. RJ. 04 SN-5185, belonging to the
accused-petitioner were lying at the said residential premises; a
total of 93 kg, and 100 gms. of poppy straw (Doda Post), 3 kgs.
100 gms. of opium and 750 gms. of manufactured opium
respectively, were found there, and the same were seized by the
concerned police authorities; two sharp knives, among other
things, were also found. Thereafter, the police arrested the
accused-petitioner and other person(s), and registered the
impugned FIR against the accused person.
2.1 Thereafter, the concerned police authorities filed the charge
sheet bearing no.1/2019 against the accused-petitioner and co-
accused and the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated
01.07.2019, framed charges under aforementioned Sections
against the accused-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police
party violated the mandatory provision of a law as contained in
the Act of 1985; the search and seizure was conducted by the
Sub-Inspector, who is not an authorized person under the Act of
1985; the learned Court below failed to appreciate the said
material and vital aspect, while passing the impugned order of
framing charges against the accused-petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
only Sub-Inspectors, posted as Station House Officers, are
(Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 11:44:34 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-372/2020]
empowered under Section 42 of the Act of 1985 for search and
seizure, and that in the present case, the concerned police
authorities have not complied with Section 42 of the Act of 1985
thereby, violated the said provision of law.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of the submissions
so made, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala (2000)
8 SCC 590; he further placed reliance on the judgment rendered
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gopal
& Ors. Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3073 of
2014 decided on 01.09.2017).
6. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner and
submitted that the accused-petitioner was found to be in a
possession of a commercial quantity of contraband without any
valid license or permission, and therefore, the learned Court below
has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into due
consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and
the evidences placed on record, to the extent necessary at the
stage of framing of charges.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the Bar.
8. This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the
learned Court below, is a speaking order, which states that the
concerned police authorities found and recovered the contraband
in question of a commercial quantity, from the accused-petitioner.
(Downloaded on 01/12/2022 at 11:44:34 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-372/2020]
9. This Court further finds that at the stage of framing of
charge, the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a
meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the
same, as was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors
(2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs.
Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290.
10. This Court also observes that the judgments cited at the Bar
by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not render any
assistance to the petitioner's case.
11. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that
the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as
to call for any interference by this Court, at this stage.
12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
