Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.K.TRIVEDI
BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL - Appellant
Versus
PRUTHVIRAJ - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 472 of 1997
Decided On : 05/05/1998
The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however 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 the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
That in exercising his jurisdiction under Sec. 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
[Para 14]
( 1 ) HEARD learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. K. Shah appearing for the petitioner. Rule. Learned Advocate Kiran R. Jani with Senior Advocate B. B. Nayak having appeared in response to the notice issued to respondent No. 1 has waived the service of Rule. Similarly, learned Advocate Mr. M. R. Gehani who has appeared in response to the notice issued to respondent No. 2 has waived service of Rule. Learned A. P. P. Mr. A. J. Desai has waived service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. By consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the original accused No. 2 of a Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994, which is pending at present in the Court of Additional City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad, Court No. 10. Respondent No. 2 is the original complainant, on whose complaint, said Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 has been registered under the provisions of S. 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "n. D. P. S. Act" ). The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 12th May, 1997 passed by learned additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Court No. 10, below Exh. 99 in the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994. That vide impugned Order, learned additional Sessions Judge has discharged present respondent No. 1 who was arraigned as accused No. 8 in the proceedings of said Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 under Sec. 319 (1) of of Cr. P. C. , 1973.
( 3 ) THAT on receipt of intelligence report, the Officers of Directorate of Revenue intelligence (D. R. I. for short) raided the Warehouse at International Airport, Bombay on 4-11-1993 and under a panchnama seized a consignment lying at air cargo which was to be exported through Kenya Airways. That on investigation, said consignment was found to be containing 162 kgs. Methaqualone tablets which is also known as "mandrex Tablets". That the Officers of D. R. I. started further investigation as said consignment was found to be containing contraband material under the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act. That on further investigation, the Officers of D. R. I. also seized another consignment from an abandoned ambassador car found on Gandhinagar- mehsana Highway on 12-1-1994. That the said consignment contained 166. 750 kgs. of Mandrex tablets. Similarly, on 13-1-1994, Officers seized the consignment from the godown of Gota village containing 1,489. 6 kgs. Mandrex tablets. That the officers of D. R. I. recorded statements of various persons during the investigation and on completion, filed a complaint in the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad against (1) Achint Navnitbhai Patel, (2) Dr. Bipin Panchal, (3) Arvind Shivlal Soni, (4) Prahaladbhai Maganbhai Patel, (5) Revabhai Khemabhai Patel, (6) Kashyap arunbhai Patel, (7) Piyush Mulshankar Pandya; and some other persons. That the said case is registered as Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 under the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act.
( 4 ) IT may be noted that during the investigation, the Officers of D. R. I. also interrogated present respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 has been cited as one of the witness in the said complaint.
( 5 ) THAT the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994 was notified for framing of charge on the cause list of Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Court no. 15. That pending the further proceedings, present petitioner had moved an application-Exhibit 17 in the said proceedings under Sec. 319 (1) of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "code" ). It was prayed in the said application that the present respondent No. 1 along with one Amrutbhai soni and Bimal Amrutbhai Soni be summoned before the Court under Sec. 319 of the Code; and be directed to face the same charges that may be framed against present petitioner and other accused of said Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994. It appears from the record that learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Court No. 15 fixe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.