Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 296 (RAJ)

Daya Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2023-01-25

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
ORDER 1. Instant misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the chargesheet No. 01/2021 presented before the court of learned Special Judge NDPS Cases, Bikaner and learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner respectively. 2. The police registered a FIR on 04.05.2021 against accused persons for offence under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act in relation to recovery of contraband tramadol hydrochloride tablets. On the basis of information under Section 27 of Evidence Act, police detained the petitioners. After completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the petitioners on 11.08.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police had seized the contraband and sent sample to FSL for chemical examination and presence of narcotic substance. However, as per report of FSL, the sample tablets gave positive test for the presence of Chlorpheniramine but the presence of Tramadol could not be detected in the sample tablets and that Chlorpheniramine is not listed under NDPS Act. Thus, it is prayed that further proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be dropped and the chargesheet is also liable to be quashed qua the petitioners.. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and it is argued that although as per FSL report, the presence of Tramadol could not be detected in the sample tablets, however, whether any offence under NDPS Act is made out or not is to be determined by the trial court at the trial and at this stage, the chargesheet is not liable to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the material on record. 6. It is not in dispute that as per report of FSL, the sample tablets gave positive test for the presence of Chlorpheniramine but the presence of Tramadol could not be detected in the sample tablets and that Chlorpheniramine is not listed under NDPS Act. However, after considering the prayer of the petitioners, the learned trial court after applying its mind, declined to quash the proceedings/chargesheet. In the opinion of this Court, the legislature has provided opportunity to the accused to raise his grounds for discharge before framing of charges and it is incumbent upon the trial Court to consider the arguments and grounds before framing of charges in accordance with law. In the opinion of this Court, the legislature has provided opportunity to the accused to raise his grounds for discharge before framing of charges and it is incumbent upon the trial Court to consider the arguments and grounds before framing of charges in accordance with law. If upon considering the police report, documents on record and the grounds raised by accused, the trial court considers that there is no evidence against the accused, he can discharge them while recording reasons for doing so and if evidence is there, then, of course charges can be framed against the accused. Thus, at this stage, it is not proper to interfere with the procedure at the stage when challan has been filed after completion of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the misc. petitions having being meritless are hereby dismissed. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the grounds raised in this petition before the trial court, at the stage of framing of charges. 8. Stay applications also stand disposed of.