Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 770 (PNJ)

JUDGE SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2014-05-01

M.JEYAPAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT : M. Jeyapaul, J. Heard. Application is allowed. Main Case 2. The petitioner Judge Singh moves this petition praying for quashing of FIR No.47 dated 27.9.2013, Police Station GRP, Abohar, under Section 18/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua him. 3. The first information report would read that during the course of checking of the passengers coming out of the railway station, Abohar by the police party, one person was found carrying 4 kgs. of opium who, on being asked, disclosed his identity as Rohit Singh, i.e. the main accused and the police took into possession the said contraband. 4. The main accused Rohit Singh suffered a confession statement to the effect that he earlier delivered 1 kgs. of opium to the petitioner herein and the contraband of 4 kgs. now recovered was also meant for delivery to the petitioner. 5. On a thorough investigation of the entire case, the investigating officer having found that there was no incriminating evidence as against the petitioner herein except the confession statement of the co-accused Rohit Singh recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which, of course, did not lead to any recovery from the petitioner herein pleaded for discharge of the petitioner herein. The trial Court, not heeding to the plea of the investigating agency, took cognisance of the case both as against the petitioner as well as against Rohit Singh and thereafter framed charges against them. 6. It is to be noted that the charge was framed by the trial Court during the pendency of the petition filed by the petitioner invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the first information report. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has inadvertently made an observation as though 4 kgs. of opium which was recovered from accused Rohit was delivered to the petitioner herein. The earlier episode allegedly described by accused Rohit had been misquoted as though 4 kgs. of opium currently recovered from accused Rohit Singh was delivered to the petitioner herein. It is his further submission that there is no incriminating evidence except the alleged confession which also was retracted by co-accused Rohit Singh when he was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was available on record. of opium currently recovered from accused Rohit Singh was delivered to the petitioner herein. It is his further submission that there is no incriminating evidence except the alleged confession which also was retracted by co-accused Rohit Singh when he was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class was available on record. Therefore, it is his submission that no prima facie case has been made out and therefore, the entire proceedings qua the petitioner will have to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the charge framed by the trial Court. Of course, the investigating agency filed a final report disclosing to the trial Court that no case was made out as against the petitioner herein. At any rate, it is his submission that he leaves it to the discretion of this Court. 9. On a careful perusal of the first information report, I find that there was no reference made by co-accused Rohit Singh who was allegedly apprehended at Abohar railway station about the involvement of the petitioner herein. Except the disclosure statement made by co-accused Rohit Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no incriminating evidence available on record as against the petitioner herein. Further, I find that no disclosure statement was obtained from the petitioner herein. The disclosure statement also had not culminated in recovery of any material object from the possession of the petitioner herein. 10. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there was a wrong reference as to the delivery of 4 kgs. of opium by co-accused Rohit Singh to the petitioner in the order passed by the trial Court on an application moved by the State for discharge. The fact remains that Rohit Singh had not delivered 4 kgs. of opium to the petitioner even as per his disclosure statement. The disclosure statement which had not culminated in recovery of the material object would be of no use during the course of trial. To top it all, Rohit Singh who was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by learned Illaqa Magistrate has come out with a damaging version that never had he suffered any disclosure statement before the investigating official referring to the name of the petitioner. Nor had he delivered any contraband to him. 11. To top it all, Rohit Singh who was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by learned Illaqa Magistrate has come out with a damaging version that never had he suffered any disclosure statement before the investigating official referring to the name of the petitioner. Nor had he delivered any contraband to him. 11. The present petition has been filed long prior to the framing of charge by the trial Court rejecting the plea for discharge of the petitioner emanated from the prosecuting agency. Therefore, no occasion had arisen for the petitioner to challenge the charge. Even otherwise, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the consequential criminal proceedings emanating from the first information report. 12. In view of the above, I find that no case is made out as against the petitioner under the NDPS Act. In my view, the trial Court should have accepted the discharge plea set up by the investigating agency as no incriminating evidence was found as against the petitioner. The trial Court should not have framed the charge as against the petitioner. 13. For all these reasons, the proceedings in FIR No.47 dated 27.9.2013, Police Station GRP, Abohar under Section 18/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner stand quashed. 14. Petition is allowed.