Remanded

Praveen Kumar Mangal v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMP/689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court ordered transfer of a Sessions trial under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to the court hearing a parallel NDPS trial to ensure unified adjudication. Directing separate evidence recording but simultaneous disposal to prevent conflicting judgments.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Sessions Case No.7/2020 to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur for trial alongside the pending NDPS case, with separate evidence recording but simultaneous disposal.

Praveen Kumar Mangal Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11772]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 689/2021

¶4

Praveen Kumar Mangal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop, Aged About 59 Years, B/c Agrawal, R/o Ward No. 3, Sri Keshrisinghpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶5

Madu @ Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Naurang Lal, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Temple, Sri Keshrisinghpur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State, Through PP

¶9

The Drugs Controller Officer, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶12

07/03/2024

¶13

By way of filing the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶14

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Sec.482, Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar not to proceed in the matter pending before it in Sessions Case No.7/2020 for the offences under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 till disposal of the Sessions Case No.3/2017 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 or in alternative, both the afore-mentioned cases

[2024:RJ-JD:11772]

[CRLMP-689/2021]

(2 of 6)

may kindly be tagged/consolidated at one place before one court for trial.

¶19

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.”

¶20

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.07.2016, the Drug Controller, Sri Ganganagar received an information that petitioner No.2, in his house situated at Ward No.2, near temple, Village Kesrisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar, had stored a huge quantity of illegal/unauthorized drugs. On receiving the aforesaid information, the house of petitioner No.2 was raided. During search and seizure, a huge quantity of illegal/unauthorized drugs was recovered.

¶21

On the basis of aforesaid, an FIR No.164/2016 dated 14.07.2016 was lodged against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). After investigation, the chargesheet has been filed on 30.12.2016 for the offences under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 25 of the NDPS Act.

¶22

It is pertinent to mention here that the samples drawn from the confiscated drugs were also sent to the State Analyst DIL Jaipur and the report thereof was then forwarded to the Drug Controller, Rajasthan Jaipur. The Drug Controller, Sri Ganganagar thereupon, after due process of law, filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 27(b)(ii), 27(d), 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 05.03.2019 took cognizance against the present petitioners and the matter was committed to the court

[2024:RJ-JD:11772]

[CRLMP-689/2021]

(3 of 6)

of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Presently, the petitioners are facing the trial for the offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.7/2020.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners made a limited prayer before this Court that since the two cases registered against the petitioner under the NDPS and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 arise out of one and the same incident and since the petitioners are facing two sessions trials at two different places, therefore, the same may be ordered to be tried together at one place even if the same are not consolidated. In other words, evidence in both the cases be recorded separately but they may be disposed of simultaneously. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (1985) 1 SCC 422.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (Supra) pleased to held as under:-

¶31

“...7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court was wrong in upholding the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the cases be clubbed and consolidated particularly when the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different and the accused persons are also not the same. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan for the submission that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated. Further, he contends that in view of

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:11772]

[CRLMP-689/2021]

the conflicting prosecution versions in the two cases it is proper that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should inform the Government about the desirability to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case of the complainant.

¶36

8. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case we feel that the proper course to adopt is to direct that the two cases should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but not consolidated i.e. the evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in one case, withhold his judgment and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Thereafter he shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of the cases by two separate judgments taking care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case. In Kewal Krishan case, this Court had occasion to deal with a situation as the present, where two cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session, one instituted on a police report under Section 173 of the Code and the other initiated on a criminal complaint, arose out of the same transaction. The Court observed that to obviate the risk of two courts coming to conflicting findings, it was desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same court. The High Court was largely influenced in upholding the order of the learned Additional Sessions judge by the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code which provides that

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:11772]

[CRLMP-689/2021]

no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. If there is no punishment for the offence as a result of the prosecution, sub-clause (2) of Article 20 has no application. The constitutional right guaranteed by Article 20(2) against double jeopardy can still be reserved if the two cases are tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they be disposed of simultaneously. Further, the second prosecution must be for the ‘same offence’. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable…”

¶41

In light of the aforesaid precedent law and with a view to obviate the risk of two courts coming to conflicting findings in the criminal cases arising out of the same search and seizure proceedings, as had taken place in the present matter, this Court deems it just and proper to transfer the trial pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.7/2020 for the offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar where the petitioners are facing the trial in connection with the offences under the NDPS Act in Sessions Case No.3/2017. The trial against the present petitioners for the offences under Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and NDPS Act shall be conducted together in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar but the same shall not be consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both the cases but they may be disposed of simultaneously.

[2024:RJ-JD:11772]

[CRLMP-689/2021]

(6 of 6)

It is further directed that record of the Sessions Case No.7/2020 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar be send to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar forthwith.

¶46

All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶47

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶48

667-himanshu/-

Praveen Kumar Mangal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Mangal 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Bajiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Tejpal Hudda Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan