Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 12 (RAJ)

Mohan Giri v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner Mohan Giri has approached this court seeking to challenge the further proceedings including the charge-sheet etc. in pursuance of the FIR No.221/2002 registered at Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act so also the proceedings of the Sessions Case No.59/2002 pending in the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh. 2. Facts in brief are that Bhanwar Singh, ASI, Police Station Kapasan, allegedly recovered contraband poppy straw weighing 1 quintal 83 kg 100 gm from a Jeep bearing registration No. RJ 12 CO 515, which was abandoned by its 3 occupants on seeing the police party. On search of the jeep being taken, the registration certificate thereof was recovered and it was found that the vehicle was registered in the name of Mohan Nath S/o Chaman Nath, resident of Village Fedani, Tehsil Bheenmal. Enquiry was made from Mohan Nath, who stated that he had sold the vehicle to one Naina Ram. An agreement dated 05.01.2002 for evidencing the sale was also presented by Mohan Nath to the Investigating Officer. Naina Ram was interrogated and he in turn, admitted that he had purchased the vehicle from Mohan Nath. However, subsequently, Naina Ram presented an agreement dated 26.02.2002, as per which the jeep in question had been sold to the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that the said agreement, which was exhibited as Ex.P18 does not bear either the signature or the thumb impression of the present petitioner. Be that as it may, significant it is to note that during course of the trial, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, namely Mohan Nath, submitted an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C before the trial court and took possession of the jeep on Supurdginama under the order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the trial court. After trial, the two charge-sheeted accused Kanaram and Madan Singh, who were charged for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act were acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 06.11.2004. The Investigating Officer has thereafter proceeded to file charge-sheet in abscondance under Section 299 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for the purported offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 3. The Investigating Officer has thereafter proceeded to file charge-sheet in abscondance under Section 299 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for the purported offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 3. The petitioner has approached this court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition for challenging the proceedings of the above charge-sheet. Mr. Kanaram, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently urged that ex facie allowing the proceedings of the charge-sheet to be continued against the petitioner is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. He contended that from the admitted facts as narrated above, it is evident that the vehicle stood registered in the name of Mohan Nath. Mohan Nath claimed to have sold the vehicle to Naina Ram, who in turn claimed that he sold the same to the petitioner through an agreement dated 26.02.2002. However, as per Mr. Kumbhat, the said sale letter is totally false and fabricated. The petitioner never purchased the offending vehicle from Naina Ram. He referred to the application filed by Mohan Nath, the registered owner in the trial court under Section 451 Cr.P.C and urged that had there been an iota of truth in the assertion that the vehicle had been sold by Mohan Nath, then he would not have moved the application for seeking custody of the vehicle. Furthermore, in the said application, there is no reference of the alleged sale. Thus, as per Mr. Kumbhat, the entire story set up by the aforesaid Mohan Nath duiring investigation of him having sold the vehicle to Naina Ram and Naina Ram having sold the same to the petitioner is false, fabricated and concocted and has been created by these two persons in connivance with the Investigating Officer to save their own skin. He, thus, craves quashing of the impugned charge-sheet qua the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, though vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Kumbhat, but he too was not in position to dispute these startling facts, which clearly indicate that Mohan Nath, registered owner of the offending vehicle, somehow or the other appears to have stage-managed the entire story of sale in order to save his own neck from prosecution. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, though vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Kumbhat, but he too was not in position to dispute these startling facts, which clearly indicate that Mohan Nath, registered owner of the offending vehicle, somehow or the other appears to have stage-managed the entire story of sale in order to save his own neck from prosecution. Had there been an iota of truth in the story regarding the vehicle having been sold to the petitioner, apparently, Mohan Nath would have no subsisting interest therein and could not have moved an application for seeking custody of the vehicle. Furthermore, in the application moved on behalf of Mohan Nath under Section 451 Cr.P.C, the certified copy whereof is placed on record, there is no reference that he had sold the vehicle to anybody. In this background, this court is of the firm opinion that allowing prosecution of the petitioner in this case to be continued for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act is nothing short of gross abuse of process of law. As a matter of fact, the prosecution, if any, should of Mohan Nath, the registered owner. 5. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Further proceedings of the impugned charge-sheet in C.R. No.221/2002 in the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh of Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh pending against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act are hereby quashed only to the petitioner's extent.