Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 314 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria (hereinafter to be referred as the 'trial court') in NDPS Case No.10/2018, whereby the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the call details of the police personnel, who, as per search memo were present at the time of seizure of narcotic contraband from his shop. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the call details of the police personnel. It is submitted that call detail will not prejudice the case of either of the parties and the same will be of great assistance to the trial court to reach just decision of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3399/2018 (Niku Khan @ Mohammed Deen vs. State) decided on 14.12.2018. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. The trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner while observing that in the application, the petitioner has simply stated that from the secret sources, he came to know that police personnel, who had conducted the seizure proceedings as per the seizure memo were not present at the scene of crime but he had not disclosed as to who had informed him about the same. The trial court was also of the opinion that the matter is still at the stage of framing of charges and during the course of trial, the petitioner will get every opportunity to disprove the seizure proceedings, if the same is proved by the prosecution while producing evidence. 7. The trial court was also of the opinion that the matter is still at the stage of framing of charges and during the course of trial, the petitioner will get every opportunity to disprove the seizure proceedings, if the same is proved by the prosecution while producing evidence. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and particularly taking into consideration the fact that petitioner had made a statement that he came to know from his source that the witnesses of the recovery of the narcotic contraband were not present at the scene of crime at the time of preparation of the seizure memo but he had not disclosed that from whom and when he received such information and taking into consideration the above fact, I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the trial court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not liable to be interfered with lightly. 8. So far as regarding the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this court passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3399/2018 is concerned, the facts of this case are altogether different as the petitioner in that case had alleged that he filed complaint against the police personnel on 19.01.2018 and in counter to that the police officials had conducted false search proceedings in the house of him, whereas, in the present case, no such allegation has been levelled by the petitioner that the police personnel have acted against him due to malafide or they are having enmity with him. Hence, the above judgment is quite distinguishable on facts and will not help the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. 10. Stay petition also stands dismissed.