Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Jagdish Das And Anr (2025:Rj-Jd:21998) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:21998]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 251/2005
State of Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
(1) Jagdish Das S/o Jugal Das Beragi, R/o Akhepur, PS
Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
(2) Shri Pushkar Das S/o Shri Gopal Das Beragi, R/o Kadiavad,
PS Rathanjana, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jyoti R. Patel for
Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary
Mr. Ramratan Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
07/05/2025
Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State against the order dated
12.01.2005, passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases,
Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.01/2005 whereby the learned trial
court discharged the accused-respondents from the offences
punishable under Sections 8/18, 8/25, 8/29 of NDPS Act.
Brief facts of the case are that upon receiving a secret
information, the Police team laid a blockade at Bhuwasiya Tiraya.
During blockade, they apprehended the accused respondents
coming on a motorcycle. Upon search, 3 kg. opium was recovered
from the side bag of motorcycle without any valid licence and
permit. After completion of all the formalities, the police registered
[2025:RJ-JD:21998] (2 of 3) [CRLR-251/2005]
the FIR and started investigation. After investigation, the police
filed challan against the accused-respondents for offence under
Section 8/18 of NDPS Act before the competent court. After
arguments on charge, the learned trial court vide order dated
12.01.2005 discharged the accused-respondents from the offences
under Sections 8/18, 8/25, 8/29 of NDPS Act. Hence, this revision
petition.
Learned AAG appearing for the State has submitted that the
learned trial court has committed grave error in giving finding that
the seizure proceedings conducted by the ASI was not legal. It is
humbly submitted that the concerned ASI was at that particular
time having charge of Police Station Ranthanjana as SHO and
therefore, he was competent enough to initiate the seizure
proceedings against the accused-respondents. But, the learned
trial court committed serious error in not considering the seizure
proceedings conducted by the ASI as legal and wrongly discharged
the accused-respondents from the offences under NDPS Act. Thus,
the impugned order being per se illegal deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned AAG
and submitted that learned trial court has rightly discharged the
accused-respondents from offences under NDPS Act as the ASI
was not competent to conduct the seizure proceedings as per
Section 42 of NDPS Act. The impugned order is just and proper
and requires no interference from this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order passed by the trial court.
[2025:RJ-JD:21998] (3 of 3) [CRLR-251/2005]
As per the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act, only the
authorized Police personnel by the government can exercise power
under NDPS matters. In this regard, a notification dated
16.10.1986 has also been issued by the Government.
In the present case, the whole proceedings was conducted
by an ASI and not by the SHO of a Police Station. Thus, as per the
provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act, the ASI was not authorized
to conduct proceedings under NDPS Act against the accused-
respondents as at that time, he was not the In-charge of any
Police Station. This Court is in agreement with the observations
given by the trial court while discharging the accused-respondents
from the aforesaid offences.
Hence, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity
in the impugned order and the same does not require any
interference from this Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition, being bereft of any merit,
is hereby dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
3-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
