Dismissed

Damaram v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2022CRLMP/372/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the framing of charges under the NDPS and Arms Acts. The court held that the impugned order was a speaking order and that the trial court was not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence at the charge-framing stage, rejecting arguments regarding unauthorized police search.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

Damaram Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 372/2020

¶3

Damaram S/o Shri Darojram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Lilsar, Chouhtan, District Barmer.

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner	: Mr. Hardev Ram Bishnoi(on VC)
For Respondent	: Mr. Arun Kumar P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

Reserved on 29/11/2022 Pronounced on 01/12/2022

¶12

The Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Barmer in Case No. 13/2019 (arising out of FIR No.467/2018 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Barmer), whereby the learned Court below framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 8/15, 17, 18, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act 1959.

¶13

Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 30.10.2018 at 3:26 PM, Shri Lunaram, Incharge of Police Station, Kotwali, Barmer received an information regarding certain contraband, and on the same day at 4:10 PM, the said Shri Lunaram, along with a police team

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLMP-372/2020]

¶16

conducted a raid at the residence of the accused-petitioner, and upon compliance of the necessary provisions of law, the police team carried out the search at the said residential premises; a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. RJ.16/UA-2474, and a Scooty bearing registration no. RJ. 04 SN-5185, belonging to the accused-petitioner were lying at the said residential premises; a total of 93 kg, and 100 gms. of poppy straw (Doda Post), 3 kgs. 100 gms. of opium and 750 gms. of manufactured opium respectively, were found there, and the same were seized by the concerned police authorities; two sharp knives, among other things, were also found. Thereafter, the police arrested the accused-petitioner and other person(s), and registered the impugned FIR against the accused person.

¶17

2.1 Thereafter, the concerned police authorities filed the charge sheet bearing no.1/2019 against the accused-petitioner and coaccused and the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 01.07.2019, framed charges under aforementioned Sections against the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police party violated the mandatory provision of a law as contained in the Act of 1985; the search and seizure was conducted by the Sub-Inspector, who is not an authorized person under the Act of 1985; the learned Court below failed to appreciate the said material and vital aspect, while passing the impugned order of framing charges against the accused-petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that only Sub-Inspectors, posted as Station House Officers, are

¶20

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-372/2020]

¶21

empowered under Section 42 of the Act of 1985 for search and seizure, and that in the present case, the concerned police authorities have not complied with Section 42 of the Act of 1985 thereby, violated the said provision of law.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of the submissions so made, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 590; he further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Gopal & Ors. Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3073 of 2014 decided on 01.09.2017).

¶23

On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner and submitted that the accused-petitioner was found to be in a possession of a commercial quantity of contraband without any valid license or permission, and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences placed on record, to the extent necessary at the stage of framing of charges.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the Bar.

¶25

This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is a speaking order, which states that the concerned police authorities found and recovered the contraband in question of a commercial quantity, from the accused-petitioner.

¶26

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-372/2020]

¶27

This Court further finds that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290. 10. This Court also observes that the judgments cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not render any assistance to the petitioner’s case.

¶28

In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶29

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶30

Skant/-

Damaram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damaram v. State

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Dhanwantari

Rajendra Singh @ Raju Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dalpat Raj Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitin Arora Vs State

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs State

Sandhya Mukherjee Vs State