Dismissed

Prahlad Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Dec 2023CRLR/1559/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal revision petition seeking to quash an order framing charges under Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Upholding the trial court's decision, the court held that the allegations and material regarding conspiracy and call records prima facie established the offence.

What did the court decide?

The order framing charges dated 19.11.2022 is upheld and the present revision petition is rejected.

Prahlad Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:45019]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1559/2022

¶4

Prahlad Ram S/o Kesharam, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Khariya Tala Ps Shiv Dist. Barmer At Present R/o At Plot No. 84 New Pali Road Near Lahriya Sweets Home, Jodhpur Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment

¶12

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/12/2023

¶13

The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order framing charges dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 174/2021 whereby charges for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act have been framed against the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while relying upon the statements of the co-accused - Chattaram, the petitioner was entangled in the present case. It is submitted that when the contraband article was recovered, the petitioner was not present at the site. Even, the witnesses of the site have not stated anything against the petitioner. It is further submitted that even the persons from whose possession the contraband article was

[2023:RJ-JD:45019]

[CRLR-1559/2022]

(2 of 5)

recovered have not named the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's name has nowhere been mentioned in the FIR, but the learned Court below has not considered this material aspect of the matter and on conjectures and surmises has framed charge against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that there no connection of the petitioner with the principal co-accused. Thus, it is submitted that the present Revision Petition may be allowed and the order dated 19.11.2022 framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act may be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Sahdev versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1173/2019) decided on 02.12.2019.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor while relying upon the charge-sheet (more specifically Page Nos. 3 and 4 of the charge-sheet) submitted that the coaccused-Chattaram specifically stated that the recovered contraband article that is poppy husk was to be handed over to the present petitioner for which the present petitioner gave consideration to him. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are call details between the petitioner and the other other co-accused and therefore, it is submitted that there was specific role of the petitioner in commission of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing the order framing charge against the

[2023:RJ-JD:45019]

[CRLR-1559/2022]

(3 of 5)

petitioner for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Thus, it is prayed that this Criminal Revision Petition may be rejected.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

I have perused the charge-sheet wherein it is specifically mentioned that in total 148 kg 600 grams of poppy husk has been recovered in the present case. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is involved criminal conspiracy to commit the offence. In the charge-sheet, it is also stated that on the request of the present petitioner, the contraband article was transported by the other co-accused so as to be handed over to him. As per the charge-sheet, there are call records between the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. The investigating agency has filed charge-sheet against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶26

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra reported in MANU/SC/0746/2012 has summarized the principles and has held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under:

¶27

“….

¶28

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent

(4 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:45019]

[CRLR-1559/2022]

person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

¶33

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

¶34

27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.

¶35

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.”

¶36

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana reported in MANU/SC/0730/2023, while reiterating the observations made in Amit Kapoor (supra) has observed that:

¶37

“17. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the Accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the Accused. The

(5 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:45019]

[CRLR-1559/2022]

small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the Accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. ...”

¶42

Therefore, on applying the principles laid down as above, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order. Learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 19.11.2022. The impugned order is based on the material available on record.

¶43

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order framing charges dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 174/2021 is upheld.

¶44

It is further directed that the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment while deciding the case.

¶45

Accordingly. the present revision petition is rejected. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶48

2-CPG/Dinesh-

Prahlad Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Ram v. State of Rajasthan

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

Murlidhar Vs Smt.Bhoma Bai and Ors.

Sayari Devi Vs Geeta Devi

Shakti Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepali Vs Piyush

Shankar Lal Vs Gigi Devi

Manfool Vs State of Rajasthan