High Court rejected criminal writ petition challenging rejection of discharge application in an NDPS case. Court found prima facie case established by prosecution evidence sufficient to frame charges, refusing discharge of applicant.
Criminal Writ Petition rejected; discharge application for applicant dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 731 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 582 OF 2018 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 2691 OF 2021
Okoye Cyprain Chinnasa ...Applicant Versus The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Tanveer Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Adv. Shishir Hiray, Special Public Prosecutor, a/w Mr. Ankur Pahade and Mr. Sanjay Kokane, Advocate for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 1st AUGUST, 2022.
PER COURT:
Criminal Writ Petition No.731 of 2018 was sent through jail, for expediting hearing of said writ petition. Interim Application No. 2691 of 2021 is an application filed through Advocate appointed to
1 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
represent petitioner by providing requisite details about prosecution case and seeking discharge in the said proceedings.
2 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
resulted in seizure of 9500 k.g. Ephedrine. The applicant is a Nigerian national. He was arrested on 9th February, 2017. About 15 persons were arrested. The petitioner was also involved in C.R. No.11 of 2016 registered with Shil-Daighar police station under Section 8(c) and 22 of NDPS Act on 10th April, 2016. The case of prosecution in C.R. No.11 of 2016 is that the petitioner was found in possession 500 gms. white coloured cream, MD (Mephedrone) valued Rs.12,50,000/-. It is alleged that, the Methamphetamine seized from petitioner was made from Ephedrine procured from Avon Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Solapur. The Ephedrine was process by petitioner for selling it in market. The Ephedrine was transported from Avon Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Solapur by various persons. One of the person involved in transporting namely Sushil Kumar is accused in present case. It is alleged that Sushil Kumar procured Ephedrine from Avon Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Solapur and sold it to petitioner to prepare Methamphetamine from it. It is alleged that car used by accused Sushil Kumar for taking out Ephedrine from company premises was seized. The statement of Rakesh Kanavadekar was recorded. He disclosed involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence. The said witness and petitioner has been knowing each other for long time. The said witnesses is accused in three cases, registered with different police stations. Statements of
3 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
employees of company were recorded. According to prosecution, the petitioner is involved in this case. He is engaged in business of transporting Ephedrine, and supplied it to others for producing Methamphetamine. Such storage, supply was illegal.
4 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
made against him. He was involved in another case and found in possession of contraband. The prosecution is relying upon several circumstances which indicate the involvement of the petitioner. At the stage of framing charge the Court is not required to hold roving inquiry. Various statements recorded during the course of investigation supports prosecution case. The offences is of serious nature. The prosecution has filed affidavit in reply opposing the relief. It is submitted that bail application preferred by the petitioner was withdrawn since the Court or not inclined to grant relief. He relied upon the decisions in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Sanjay Choudhary and Others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 681 & decision of Soma Chakravarty V/s. State through CBI (2007) 5 SCC 403. Statement of Jay Mukhi (accused) was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in which he stated that his associates sent Ephedrine to Ahmedabad from Avon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. company to make it as white powder form and packing, which was to be delivered to petitioner. After processing Ephedrine was to be exported to wanted accused vicky Goswami. The applicant processed Ephedrine for converting into Methamphetamine. 15 persons were arrested. Five persons are absconding. Petitioner is involved in C.R. No. 11 of 2016. Narcotic Drug was seized from him. Ephedrine was procured from Avon Life
5 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
Science, Solapur. Accused Sushil Kumar arrested in present case had procured Ephedrine from said company, and sold it to petitioner. Statement of Rakesh Khanavadekar discloses involvement of petitioner. Supplementary statement of Nagendra Baliram Agwane shows the entry of Red coloured Renault Car bearing registration No. MH-46-AP-172 with two persons. There is sufficient evidence to proceed against petitioner.
6 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
other circumstances on record are sufficient to frame charge and proceed against petitioner. This is not the stage to appreciate evidence. In the case of Union of India V/s. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (supra) it was observed that the Court, while framing charge has undoubted power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima fiacie case against the accused is made out. Where the material placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Courts will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with trial. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. If two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. In exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Court cannot act merely as post office or mouthpiece of prosecution. In the case of Sanghi brothers (Supra) it was held that, the test to be applied at the stage of discharge is of prima facie case. There is not necessity of formulating opinion about prospect of conviction. In some Soma Chakravarty Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra), it was observed that, Court can
7 of 8
Sunny Thote
5-APPW-582-2018.doc
frame charge if on the basis of material on record it can form on opinion that commission of offence by accused was possible. There is no debate about the parameters which have to be considered at the stage of framing of chargesheet. Applying those principles, I find at there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner. No case is made out for discharge.
ORDER
Criminal Writ Petition No.731 of 2018 is rejected and
disposed of.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
8 of 8
Sunny Thote
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a prima facie case to frame charges against the applicant given the prosecution evidence.
Whether the applicant is entitled to a discharge order under Section 227 CrPC.
If prima facie satisfaction exists based on material on record, whether charge can be framed instead of discharging accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India V/s Prafulla Kumar SamalReferred¶24
2015 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 119 · Who else cites this
Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Sanjay Choudhary and OthersReferred¶34
(2008) 10 SCC 681 · Who else cites this
Soma Chakravarty V/s. State through CBIReferred¶34
(2007) 5 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Okoye Cyprain Chinnasa
The State Of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
