Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2700 (RAJ)

Somraj v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-03

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), the petitioner has preferred the present petition invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the petitioner was intercepted while he was driving a car and found carrying contraband substances (poppy straw) weighing 70.100 kilograms. 3. The petitioner was apprehended on the spot on 07.01.2019; the charge-sheet was filed and consequently is facing the trial for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. It is to be noted that the vehicle being driven by the petitioner - Hyundai i-20 Car bearing Registration No.RJ-36-CA- 6852 was registered in the name of one Mahaveer Kathat. 5. Said Mahaveer Kathat was arrayed as a co-accused in the case, however, for want of his whereabouts, the charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 299 of the Code. 6. The trial qua petitioner continued and reached the stage of final arguments. 7. Then, on 06.04.2022, said Mahaveer Kathat was arrested and produced before the Court and the trial against him also commenced and was taken up along with the other co-accused. 8. At this juncture, the present petitioner (Somraj) moved an application dated 12.08.2022 and prayed that petitioner's trial which has reached the final stage be separated from the trial of Mahaveer Kathat. 9. The petitioner's such application was opposed by counsel of the co-accused - Mahaveer Kathat, so also by the learned Public Prosecutor, who argued that if the trial qua petitioner is concluded, it may adversely affect rights of Mahaveer Kathat - the registered owner of the vehicle. 10. Mr. Bhanwaru Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the present petitioner whose trial has reached the final stage cannot be asked to wait and suffer merely because of the lapse on the part of the prosecution or because of the conduct of the co- accused- Mahaveer Kathat, who has avoided the investigation and the trial. 11. It was argued that the trial qua Mahaveer Kathat may take substantial time and the petitioner, whose trial is over and who is behind bars for the last three years, cannot be made to suffer for this reason. 12. 11. It was argued that the trial qua Mahaveer Kathat may take substantial time and the petitioner, whose trial is over and who is behind bars for the last three years, cannot be made to suffer for this reason. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that if the petitioner's trial is segregated, the rights of the co-accused (Mahaveer Kathat) - the registered owner of the vehicle, who has come with the plea that he had handed over the possession and ownership of the vehicle in question to the present petitioner by way of agreement to sell dated 21.08.2018, would be adversely affected and thus, no indulgence be granted to the petitioner as prayed. 13. Mr. Bhanwaru Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that co-accused Mahaveer Kathat has taken a specific plea that he had transferred the ownership and possession of the vehicle to the petitioner on 21.08.2018 and he was not present at the time of seizure. He argued that said co-accused has to prove his case independently and petitioner's presence is not necessary. 14. It was argued that so far as role of Mahaveer Kathat is concerned, he has been implicated essentially for being a registered owner and thus, the testimony of the witnesses who have been examined in so far hardly has any relevance or bearing. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner produced proceedings of the trial Court which reveals that on the request of co-accused Mahaveer Kathat, four witnesses - Seizure Officer and Investigating Officers (three in number) have been called in witness box. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the trial which is practically over in petitioner's case cannot be stalled at the instance of co- accused- Mahaveer Kathat, who has been apprehended after about four years of the incident and whose defence at the best is, that he had transferred the possession and ownership of the vehicle to the petitioner by way of agreement dated 21.08.2018. 17. The recordings of evidence of four persons may take sufficient time and thus, petitioner's right cannot be thwarted till conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution and even of the defence (Mahaveer Kathat). 18. In this view of the matter, it is deemed expedient that the petitioner's trial be segregated and continued. 19. The petition therefore, succeeds. 20. The petitioner's application dated 12.08.2022 is hereby allowed. 21. 18. In this view of the matter, it is deemed expedient that the petitioner's trial be segregated and continued. 19. The petition therefore, succeeds. 20. The petitioner's application dated 12.08.2022 is hereby allowed. 21. The trial Court is directed to hear final arguments in petitioner's case and decide his case independent of irrespective of the pendency of the trial against Mahaveer Kathat. 22. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.