Point of Law: Revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court suo-motu particularly to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of any proceedings of the inferior court

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for short), the applicant assails the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, below Exh:67 in Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2018, whereby, the learned Special Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 herein under Section 307 read with Section 306 of the Code seeking his pardon by promising to reveal and disclose the whole truth and give evidence on behalf of the prosecution.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the applicant has come up before this Court by this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

3. The applicant and respondent No.2 are facing trial in the court of learned Special Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Special (NDPS) Case No.3/2018 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 117, 167, 204, 343, 465, 471 read with Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17, 18, 21, 27(A), 29, 58(1) and 58(2) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act for short).

4. The facts leading to file present revision can be summarized as under:-

(i) The applicant Sanjeev Bhatt was posted at District Banaskantha as District Superintendent of Police and had served there from 13.10.1995 to 18.10.1996. During the tenure of Mr. Bhatt, respondent No.2 Mr. I.B.Vyas had served as Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch at Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha.

(ii) It is alleged by the prosecution that, when the applicant was posted as District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur, he and other co-accused have hatched the conspiracy to frame one Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, resident of Pali, Rajasthan State, in a false case of opium, punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act. It is further alleged that, the applicant being a District Superintendent of Police by influencing his subordinate officer had involved them in the alleged criminal conspiracy. As a part of conspiracy, a false verdhi was being transmitted to control room on 30.04.1996 inter alia stating that, information received by the control room that, at about 06:10 a.m, Sumer Singh Rajpurohit is doing business of Opium and yesterday he brought 5 kgs opium and stayed at Hotel Lajvanti, Palanpur and delivery of the opium has to be given in Palanpur. It is alleged that, prior to the alleged verdhi, the applicant had knowledge that, the verdhi was bogus and false and had made conversation with his subordinate officer i.e. Mr. I.B.Vyas, Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch that, case of NDPS is required to be investigated. It is alleged that, Mr. Sanjeev Bhatt i.e. applicant herein directed the concerned to send the verdhi to LCB office and directed Mr. Vyas to investigate the case. Mr. Vyas had raided the Hotel Lajvanti and seized the contraband opium of 1.15 Kgs. from Room No.305 of the Hotel which was booked in the name of Sumer Singh in the register maintained by the hotel. It is alleged that, after seizure of the opium and upon further inquiry, it was found that, Sumer Singh had left the hotel without informing anybody. Mr. Vyas being a complainant lodged the FIR being Prohibition C.R.No.216/1996 at Palanpur Police Station and investigation was entrusted to Mr. Vyas and during the course of investigation, he had arrested Sumer Singh and produced before the Court and sought his remand. It is alleged that, during investigation, the applicant Mr. Bhatt had directed Mr. Vyas to inquire about the rented shop of Sumer Singh and Mr. Bhatt had also made conversation with Sumer Singh about his shop and threatened him to vacate the same. It is alleged that, during his custody, at the instance of the applicant Mr. Bhatt, report under Section 169 of the Code had been filed by the respondent No.2 Mr. I.B.Vyas, inter ali