Narayan Nayak vs State Of Jharkhand

I.A. No. 630 of 2019

This Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 53 days in preferring the present revision.

Heard. In view of the reasons assigned in para 3 and 4 of the supporting affidavit, sufficient cause and reasonable explanation is made out, accordingly the delay is condoned.

I.A. No. 630 of 2019 stands allowed.

Cr. Rev. No. 1736 of 2018

This revision has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XIVth, Hazaribag arising out of Chouparan P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017 (N.D.P.S.) (G.R. No. 463 of 2017) whereby the petition for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, has been rejected.

Learned counsel, for the petitioner, has submitted that it would be evident from F.I.R that the allegation is that the petitioner and co-accused had tried to flee away when they saw the police party. It is argued that there is no material on record to show that this petitioner was riding the motor cycle alongwith co-accused. It is submitted perusal of the seizure list will reveal that signature of the petitioner was not taken on the seizure list. It is argued that under N.D.P.S Act is mandatory that the seizure list should be handed over to the accused after obtaining his signature. It is submitted that perusal of the charge-sheet would show that no report was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory to substantiate the allegation that the seized substance was opium. That in the absence of any report from the Forensic Science Laboratory the order of cognizance is not tenable in law. It is argued that there is no material on record to make out the offence under Section 18 (B) of N.D.P.S Act.

It is further submitted that it is settled proposition of law that the court has to record its satisfaction that the material available on record was sufficient to make out a prima facie case. It would be evident from the operative part of the impugned order that the court below has not discussed the material evidence in the case diary for arriving at the conclusion that prima facie case was made out for framing the charge under Section 18 (B) of N.D.P.S Act.

On the above grounds it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Learned APP has submitted that the court below has perused the material evidence in the case diary and recorded its satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out for framing the charge under Section 18 (B) of the Act.

Heard. On perusal of the order dated 04.07.2018,it is evident that the court below has perused the case diary and the statement of the witnesses as recorded in paras 7,8,9,10,11 & 12. It is alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused on seeing the police personnel had tried to flee away. It is alleged that 2 K.g of Opium was recovered from one of the co-accused.

It is settled legal position that at the stage of charge the court is not required to sift and weigh the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the materials available will lead to conviction or not. The court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or hold a mini trial. The court can frame charge even in case of strong suspicion. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from illegality or impropriety.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merit of the case and the court below shall decide and adjudicate the mater on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. The petitioner can always raise the points in his defence at the appropriate stage during the trial.

With the aforesaid direction, these revision stands dismissed.