Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1067 (RAJ)

Mahaveer Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-24

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 27.02.2018, whereby charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the "Act"), the same had been rightly framed by the trial Court, but the trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the petitioner under Section 8/22 of the Act in view of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Annexure-3). 3. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition. 4. As per the prosecution story, petitioner was found in possession of three grams of Heroin and fifty grams of Methaqualone. Annexure-3 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and as per the same the result of examination reads as under: "On micro-chemical analysis:- Presence of methaqualone could not be detected in the sample packed in the packet marked A. However, the sample gave positive test for sodium thio sulphate (Hypo). The Sample packed in the packet marked D was found to contain diacetylmorphine (Heroin), hence the sample is of opium derivative as described under Section 2 (xvi) d and e of the NDPS Act, 1985." 5. As per the note given in Annexure-3, Sodium Thio Sulphate (Hypo) is not listed under NDPS Act. 6. Thus, as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, charge could not have been framed against the petitioner with regard to possession of methaqualone as the chemical test was negative. 7. Accordingly, in view of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Annexure-3), this petition is partly allowed. Charge framed against the petitioner under Section 8/22 of the Act with regard to allegation that he was in possession of fifty grams methaqualone is set aside. Charge framed against the petitioner under Section 8/21 of the Act is maintained as the same has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.