Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2711 (RAJ)

Parsa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-12-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Sirohi whereby he has framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 8/15, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are employees of the licensed dealer of poppy straw and the goods in question were being plied under a valid permit. He has placed reliance on the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2349/2009 wherein the fact regarding permit being available on the record has been referred to. He also points out the charge-sheet filed by the police wherein also, reference to permit is made. It is submitted that the police did not filed the permit on record and hence, the arguments on the basis of the same could not be raised before the trial Court. It is submitted that in the statements of Naeem and Balwant, the factum of permit being in existence has been mentioned. Thus, it is submitted that once a permit was available with the I.O., then the non-filing thereof before the trial Court is obviously an act deliberately committed to keep out the relevant documents from the access of the Court so that the accused may be unduly harassed and prosecuted without any justification. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) SCC (Cri.) 721 wherein it has been observed that it is not an absolute proposition that under no circumstances, the Court can look into the material produced by the accused at the stage of framing of the charges. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned and has submitted that the permit was valid only upto 11.4.2009 and the permit cannot be utilised by the petitioners at the stage of framing of charges. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1512 . 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the order impugned. 6. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1512 . 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the order impugned. 6. The permit in question is an admitted document and was very much available on the police file when the matter was being investigated. This Court's order dated 5.5.2009 whilst deciding the bail application of the petitioners refers to the said permit being available on the file. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, it was essential for the trial Court to have called for the said permit whilst deciding the question of charges. Though it is true that the accused did not make any such prayer for calling the permit on the record of the case. But in the opinion of this Court, looking to the fact that the arguments in relation to the licensed goods have been made before the trial Court, the question of charges needs to be considered after the perusal and consideration of the license which is claimed to be in force in relation to the goods recovered on the date when the seizure was made. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds, the order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Sirohi is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to summon the permit in question and thereafter, hear and decide the question of framing charges afresh.Stay petition also stands. disposed of.Revision Allowed. *******