Ranjan Kumar Sahu vs Union of India (NCB)

B. P. Routray, J

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. U.R. Jena, learned counsel for the NCB.

The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15. 03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur framing charge

against him for offence under Sec.20(b)(ii)(C) and Secs.27/28 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that no material is there against him to frame the charge for the offences alleged, except the statement of

the co-accused. To substantiate his submission, notice of this Court has been taken to the order passed by this Court in BLAPL No.5195 of 2019

wherein the letter of the NCB dated 19.9.2019 has been referred to the effect that, there was no call between the Petitioner and co-accused Nasir.

On the other hand, Mr. U.R. Jena, learned counsel for the NCB submits that any such observation made in the order of bail cannot be considered

for any other purpose than bail, and the same cannot be taken as a ground for discharge. Apart from that, the materials as surfaced in course of

investigation are sufficient to prima facie believe the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence.

The Supreme Court, in the case of State by Karnataka Lokayukta vs. M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515, have held that “it is a settled

principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material

which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging

from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offenceâ€​.

While considering the jurisdiction of a Sessions Judge at the time of framing charge, the Supreme Court in the case ofP alwinder Singh vs.

Balvinder Singh, (2008) 14 SCC 504, have observed that the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is

not the domain of the Court at that point of time.

Further, in the case of Smt. Om Wati vs. State, through Delhi Admn., reported in (2001) 4 SCC 333, the Apex court has gone to the extent of

observing that ‘we would again remind the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the

charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused

persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by

having resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.’

In the present facts of the case when the offence alleged is under the N.D.P.S. Act and the role of the present Petitioner has been specifically

stated in the charge-sheet, considering the statement of the witnesses and other materials surfaced in course of investigation as placed by learned

counsel for the NCB, the contention of the Petitioner that no prima facie case is made out against him is found unacceptable.

Further considering entire circumstances and the materials proposed in the charge-sheet, no merit is seen in favour of the Petitioner to discharge

him from the offence alleged.

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur.

The CRLMC is dismissed.

Copy of this order be uploaded in the High Court’s official website as per Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

…………………………………..