Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Kamla Shankar Nagda, S/o. Shri Sitaram Ji – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 438 r.w. 442 of the BNSS by the petitioner against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Act Cases, Pindwara, District Sirohi in Criminal Original Case No.19/2024 whereby the learned Judge framed charges against the petitioner under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2023, the SHO of Police Station Pindwara intercepted a Maruti Suzuki Ritz car (RJ- 14-CK-3978) during routine vehicle checking. The occupant, Mannalal (resident of Neemuch, M.P.), was found in possession of three plastic bags containing a substance suspected to be opium latex. The contraband, weighing 4 kg 760 grams, was seized and sealed in accordance with law, and Mannalal was arrested.
2.1. During interrogation, Mannalal allegedly disclosed that he had procured the contraband from Pukhraj r/o District Bhilwara and was transporting it for delivery to Madan Devasi r/o District Barmer. Subsequent statements recorded on 02.12.2023 and thereafter implicated additional persons, including alleged intended recipients of portions of the contraband.
2.2. On 05.1
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
The judiciary must uphold statutory safeguards in charge framing, ensuring independent judicial reasoning and preserving defendants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Charges under the NDPS Act cannot be framed based solely on co-accused statements and CDR evidence without establishing grave suspicion against the accused.
wherever a Court comes to conclusion that the process of Court is being abuses, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refused the party from pursuing the remedy in law.
In narcotic drug cases, subsequent procedural non-compliance and shifting of occurrence location do not preclude ongoing trials; mandatory provisions of NDPS Act must be adhered to but are contextual....
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The need for admissible evidence and material connecting the accused with the alleged crime before framing charges.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
