Revision petitioners challenged the impugned order framing charges under the NDPS Act. The High Court held the trial court rightly exercised jurisdiction as the record showed strong suspicion. The revisions were rejected.
Both criminal revisions (S.B. Criminal Revision Nos. 1198/2016 and 1207/2016) were rejected.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1198 / 2016
Babulal S/o Shri Amba Lal, by caste Patidar, aged 41 years, resident of Bardiya P.S. Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1207 / 2016 Dinesh @ Fufaa S/o Shri Mathura Lal, by caste Patidar, aged 48 years, resident of Bardiya P.S. Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.L.Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment / Order 13/07/2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
By way of these two revisions, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 25.3.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh framing charges against them for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-1198/2016]
reflected from the material available on record, I am of the firm opinion that the trial court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. for framing charges against the accused. The material available on record undoubtedly gives rise to strong suspicion that the accused committed the offences for which the charges were framed.
In this background, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order and hence, both these revisions are hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.
A copy of this order be placed in both the files.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J./
/tarun goyal/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to frame charges against the accused for offences under the NDPS Act.
Whether the material on record gave rise to strong suspicion against the accused warranting a charge sheet.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babulal S/o Shri Amba Lal
Dinesh @ Fufaa S/o Shri Mathura Lal
State of Rajasthan
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
