Cheema Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge,

(NDPS Act Cases), Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.188/2016,

whereby the trial court has ordered for framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/30 of the NDPS Act along

with other persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, it is clear that two

persons viz. Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram were apprehended by the police along with fire arms and huge amount of money and as per the prosecution,

the said amount recovered from Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram is being used for the purpose of purchasing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner only on the ground that in the diaries,

recovered from the possession from Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram, there are entries about the fact that on 03.09.2015 and 04.09.2015, the said accused

persons have purchased poppy straw weighing about 241kg. from the petitioner and one Kharta Ram.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that simply on the basis of the said evidence i.e. entries in the diaries, the petitioner cannot be charged

for the offence punishable under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act. It is argued that had the petitioner was apprehended along with other accused persons

viz. Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram, then only a case could have been made out for framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable

under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that in view of the above referred facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the

trial court of framing charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act is not sustainable in the eye of law and

the same is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and argued that it is not necessary that for framing of charge for the

offence punishable under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act, a person is required to be caught red handed or his presence is necessary at the place of

incident. It is argued that as per the language of Section 30 of NDPS Act, if the circumstances of the case it can reasonably inferred that a person

was determined to carry out his intention to commit the offence but had been prevented by circumstances independent of his will, is also guilty of

commission of offence. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable inference can be drawn

that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons was going to commit an offence under the NDPS Act because earlier also just five days

before accused persons viz. Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram, who were apprehended by the police on 08.09.2015, have purchased poppy straw from the

petitioner and one another person viz. Kharta Ram. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that material for framing of charge against the petitioner

for the offence punishable under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act is available on record, hence, the trial court has not committed any illegality in framing

charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet.

As per the material collected by the police, two persons viz. Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram were apprehended on 08.09.2015 with fire arms and huge

amount of money, and on interrogation, they revealed that they were going to purchase illegal poppy straw from some persons and, therefore, they

were carrying huge amount of money. The police have recovered two diaries from the possession of Vijay Singh and Rekha Ram, wherein it is

mentioned that both of them have purchased poppy straw weighing 241kg. from the petitioner and Kharta Ram on 03.09.2015, just five days prior to

the incident.

From the above material, it can be inferred that from the circumstances of the case, there is all possibility that again those accused persons viz. Vijay

Singh and Rekha Ram have proceeded to purchase illegal poppy straw from the petitioner and other person.

Looking to above facts and circumstances of the case, I don’t find any illegality in the action of the trial court of framing of charge against the

petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/30 of NDPS Act.

Hence, there is no force in this criminal revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.