Allowed

Pawan Ramchandra Wadhwa v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2013APL/47/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application challenging order adding applicants as accused under N.D.P.S. via s.319 Cr.P.C. allowed. Bail granted without reasons cancelled. Applicants directed to surrender before Special Judge by July 12, 2013.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted without assigning reasons cancelled. Applications dismissed. Applicants directed to surrender before Special Judge by July 12, 2013.

Pawan Ramchandra Wadhwa Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vrd 1 APL107/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.107 OF 2013

¶5

Chunilal Kumar

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

v/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.47 OF 2013

¶11

Pawan Ramchandra Wadhwa
v/s

¶12

...Applicant

¶13

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents

¶14

Mr Rishi Bhuta for Applicant.
Mr S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondents.

¶15

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.

¶16

DATED : 3RD JULY 2013.

¶17

P.C. :-

¶18

1.Heard learned counsel for the accused /
applicants. They question the legality of the
order dated 7th January 2013 passed by the learned

¶19

Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Thane whereby the learned

¶20

Judge passed order below Exh.1 directing the
accused / applicants Chunilal and Pawan to face

¶21

vrd 2 APL107/13

¶22

trial alongwith other accused in special case No.22
of 2010 and special case No.23 of 2011 by virtue of
section 319 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

2.The primary evidence illustrates that the
accused applicant Chunilal was a Driver on Tavera
jeep bearing No.MH-04-DE-5110 which was intercepted
while accused applicant Pawan was sitting next to

¶24

him. During inspection of Tavera, hoppingly 12
boxes containing 220 bars of charas weighing about
376.210 kgs. were found. This ultimately was

¶25

certified, analysed to be charas, a contraband
under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. The
accused applicants were put under fetters, they
remained so at least for 30 days. Thereafter, the
investigator filed application under section 169 of
Cr.P.C. which was entertained.

¶26

3.In the FIR, names of the accused

¶27

applicants were distinctly illustrated. There is
no legal bar in the learned Special Judge either
invoking his power under section 190(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C. Coupled with section 319 therefor to proceed

¶28

vrd 3 APL107/13

¶29

against the accused applicants.

¶30

4.Before the learned Special Judge, evidence
of PW 1 – seizing officer API Hindurao Jagdale, PW
2- Mandar Desai, a panch, PW 3- Harshali Kambli,

¶31

WPC, carrying fowarding letters and seized sample
articles to the office of the Chemical Analyser was

¶32

put in. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge
recorded that the prosecution has examined three
witnesses and since having gone through the
evidence, he primarily found that the accused
applicants have committed the offence, hence they
are required to be treated as accused in terms of
section 319 of Cr.P.C. For such purpose, separate
notice was not required as the accused applicants
were present before the learned Judge at the
material time.

¶33

5.The legal position is explained in the
matter of Uma Shankar Singh v/s State of Bihar and
anr., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 479 wherein the
Supreme Court observed, the CJM was entitled to
take cognizance vide section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

¶34

vrd 4 APL107/13

¶35

On the basis of police report itself if he

¶36

disagreed with final report submitted by the
investigating authorities. In the instant case,
having gone through the evidence of three
witnesses, the learned Special Judge, exercising

¶37

powers under the Code, under special statute,
exercised such powers. In a latest judgment, the

¶38

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dhrup Singh
and others v/s State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 4
SCC 275 reiterated the legal position following Uma
Shankar Singh's case. There was no illegality by
the learned Judge to invoke powers under section
319 of Cr.P.C. As available evidence primarily
demonstrate involvement of accused who transported
huge quantity of charas.

¶39

6.The bail granted by this Court was under

¶40

peculiar circumstances, however since the accused

¶41

applicants have to face prosecution under the
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, the restrictions
imposed under section 37 thereof have to be

¶42

considered, which starts with a non-abstante
clause. The Court has first to be satisfied that

¶43

vrd 5 APL107/13

¶44

the accused is not guilty of the offence under the
Act, and he is not likely to commit any offence.
Consequently, the bail granted by this Court on 31st
January 2013 and 11th February 2013 respectively,
recorded without assigning reasons to do so is

¶45

cancelled. The accused applicants to surrender
before the learned Special Judge upto 12th July

¶46

2013. Applications are dismissed.

¶47

( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Pawan Ramchandra Wadhwa v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Ramchandra Wadhwa v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailenddrakumar Gangaprasad Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ravsaheb Aabaji Vasagadekar

Ayub Noormohammed Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rishi Muni Agarwal Vs the Inspector of Police, Cbi/Seb and Anr.

Rupali Pravinkumar Jagtap Vs Pravinkumar Sadashiv Jagtap and Ors.

Chunilal Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.