Pukh Raj vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9120 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 450/2022

Pukh Raj S/o Happa Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Fitkasani,
P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur. At Present R/o 4/n-9, Kudi
Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Adv. assisted
                               by Mr. Kapil Purohit and Mayank Roy
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
                               Mr. Bharat Rawat, Inspector,
                               SHO, P.S. Ratanada, Jodhpur



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                    Order

13/07/2022

     Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

has drawn the attention of this Court towards the arrest memo

and has submitted that no mobile was recovered from the present

petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention

of this Court towards CDR details and has made submissions that

the mobiles, which have been analyzed by the investigating officer,

do not belong to the present petitioner.

     Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the only

information against the petitioner is under Section 27, whereby

the allegations have been attributed by the co-accused, which

cannot be given any legal meaning in light of the fact that there

are various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, one of the lead




                    (Downloaded on 15/07/2022 at 08:39:01 PM)
                                            (2 of 3)                [CRLR-450/2022]



case being Than Singh, and thus, the learned senior counsel

seeks quashing of charge.

        Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the person, from

whom, the mobile belonging, has not been investigated.

        Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment

rendered by this Court in Chirag Dave Vs. State of Rajasthan

(S.B.     Criminal    Misc.    Petition        No.4032/2018)       decided    on

20.02.2019 and Sahdev Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal

Revision Petition No.1173/2019) decided on 22.11.2019.

        Learned Public Prosecutor along with the investigating officer

present submit that as per the investigation, the location of the

petitioner was the same as that of the accused Mukesh, who

caught with the contraband. The investigating officer and the

learned Public Prosecutor also submit that there are two previous

NDPS cases going on against the present petitioner and he is a

habitual offender.

        Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that at the stage of

framing of charge, the scope of interference in a revision petition

is quite narrow.

        Learned Public Prosecutor has further relied upon the

judgment of Umar Abdul Shakoor Sorathiya Vs. Intelligence

Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, (2000) 1 SCC 138, relevant

portion of which reads as under:


        "15. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge
        the court is not expected to go deep into the probative
        value of the materials on record. If on the basis of
        materials on record the court could come to the conclusion
        that the accused would have committed the offence the
        court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed with the
        trial."


                       (Downloaded on 15/07/2022 at 08:39:01 PM)
                                                                            (3 of 3)                [CRLR-450/2022]



                                        After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

                                   perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited

                                   at Bar, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the

                                   revisionary jurisdiction. The precedent law laid down by the

                                   Hon'ble Apex Court gives sufficient ambit to continue the trial

                                   even if there is grave suspicion and high probability.

                                        However, without commenting on merits of the case, this

                                   Court disposes of the revision petition with the liberty to the

                                   petitioner to take up all the issues raised before this Court during

                                   trial at appropriate stage.

                                        All pending applications also stand disposed of.



                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

9-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)