Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1275 (RAJ)

Bagdi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-10

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No. 74/2014 registered at Police Station GRP, Kota for the offence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) to his extent and also the investigation and any other proceedings pending against him under the aforesaid FIR. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against co-accused one Shri Samrath son of Shri Ram Lakhan on 09.04.2014 on the premise that some narcotic drug was recovered from his possession without any valid licence or permit. It is to be noted that during the course of recovery of the narcotic drug from the possession of the co-accused or at the time of registration of FIR, name of the petitioner did not surface in any manner showing his involvement in the said recovery. During the course of investigation, interrogation being made from the co-accused-Shri Samrath about the source from which the recovered narcotic drug was procured by him, it was disclosed by the co-accused to the investigating officer that it was procured by him from petitioner and his brother Shri Shiv Narayan. On the basis of such information Shri Shiv Narayan was arrested, but petitioner could not be arrested till date. Thereafter, charge-sheet for offence under Section 8/21 of the Act was filed against Shri Samrath and for the offence under Section 8/21 read with Section 8/29 of the Act against Shri Shiv Narayan, whereas investigation was kept pending against petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on the ground that he has not been arrested. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was declared absconder by the trial Court and proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has also commenced against him. In the aforesaid circumstances, present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was declared absconder by the trial Court and proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has also commenced against him. In the aforesaid circumstances, present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not named in the FIR in any capacity nor any role was attributed against him in any manner in the incident and he has been arrayed as accused only on the basis of information provided by co-accused-Shri Samrath on his interrogation by the investigating officer during the course of investigation to the effect that the recovered narcotic drug was procured by him from petitioner and his brother-Shri Shiv Narayan and there is no other evidence except the alleged statement of co-accused. It was further submitted that even after the alleged statement of co-accused till date no further evidence has been collected even prima facie showing involvement of the petitioner in the said incident of he was having any connection with the recovery effected from the possession of co-accused Shri Samrath. It was also submitted that it is well settled legal position that admission/confession made by an accused during the course of investigation to a police officer is not admissible in evidence against a co-accused in absence of corroborative evidence and in the present case even if petitioner faces trial, there is no likelihood of his conviction in absence of any admissible evidence and it would be a futile exercise to conduct trial against the petitioner. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court must exercise discretion conferred upon it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of U.O.I. v. Bal Mukund & Ors. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of U.O.I. v. Bal Mukund & Ors. reported in 2009(3) Criminal Court Cases 806 (S.C.) : 2009(2) EFR 216 , Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 226) , Arif Khan v. The Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in 2001 (1) RCC 262 , Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan , Suhrata Mondal v. State of West Bengal reported in 2004 (2) Crimes 290 , Jyotiranjan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa reported in (2014) OLR 761 , Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in 2013(1) Apex Court Judgments 428 (S.C.) : 2013(1) Criminal Court Cases 582 (S.C.) : (2013) 3 SCC 330 and D.P. Gulati v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2015(2) Apex Court Judgments 275 (S.C.) : 2015(2) Criminal Court Cases 763 (S.C.) :2015) Supreme (SC) 352 and Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar reported in 2009(2) Apex Court Judgments 175 (S.C.) : 2009(2) Criminal Court Cases 442 (S.C.) : 2008) Supreme (SC) 4582. 5. On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in view of the information provided by the co-accused, at this preliminary stage it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved in the incident in any manner. It was further submitted that as soon as the name of petitioner appeared as co-accused in the case, he absconded from all the places where his presence was possible and he could not be arrested and in absence thereof neither interrogation could be made from him nor further evidence could be collected. 6. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the legal provisions and the case law relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, I find that there is no iota of legally admissible evidence available on record even prima facie showing involvement of the petitioner in any manner in the incident in which some narcotic drug was recovered from the possession of the co-accused-Shri Samrath. In absence of any corroborative evidence the petitioner cannot be held to be involved in the incident only on the basis of information provided by co-accused on his interrogation being made by the investigation during the course of investigation. In absence of any corroborative evidence the petitioner cannot be held to be involved in the incident only on the basis of information provided by co-accused on his interrogation being made by the investigation during the course of investigation. It is an admitted fact that even after coming into the knowledge of the fact that the recovered narcotic drug was procured by the co-accused from the petitioner no steps were taken by the investigating officer to collect any further evidence to corroborate and verify the information provided by the co-accused and even no evidence was collected showing whether petitioner has previously been involved in any manner with narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. I am of the view that in absence of any other evidence it would be a futile exercise to undertake trial against the petitioner as there is no possibility of his conviction. I find the present case in which this Court must exercise it jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice. 7. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 74/2014 registered at Police Station GRP, Kota and all further proceedings undertaken thereunder to the extent of the petitioner are quashed and set aside. The stay application also stands disposed of. *******