Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
Sunil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 19325 of 2024
Decided On : 23-04-2024
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Mr. Neeraj Sheoran DAG, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of proper investigation and the rights of the accused under the NDPS Act and Cr.P.C., particularly regarding declarations of proclaimed persons.
Headnote:
Quashing - Proclaimed Person - NDPS Act, Cr.P.C. Sections 15, 27A, 25, 82 - The court interpreted the provisions of the NDPS Act and Cr.P.C. to determine the legality of declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, emphasizing the need for proper investigation and the rights of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order declaring him a proclaimed person in a criminal case involving the NDPS Act, arguing he was not named in the FIR and had no knowledge of the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was similarly situated to acquitted co-accused and that the order declaring him a proclaimed person was not justified, as he was willing to surrender to face trial.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was rightly declared a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. given the circumstances of the case and the acquittal of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to ensure the presence of the accused for trial, and since the petitioner was willing to surrender, the declaration was unwarranted.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to surrender and face trial.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 08.07.2016 Annexure P-1 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in criminal case having FIR No.362 dated 16.05.2015 under Section 15/27A/25 of NDPS Act, Police Station Sirsa City District Sirsa.
2. The brief facts of the case are that police received secret information on 16.05.2015 and then reached the disclosed place where one Bolero pickup was found lying abandoned and on checking of the said vehicle, 5 plastic bags each having 28 kg of poppy husk were recovered. During investigation, Sarwan, Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu were arrested and they faced trial and finally acquitted vide judgment dated 17.09.2021 Annexure P-4.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in this case was registered against unknown persons and that petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not in knowledge about registration of any such FIR as he was not named in the same. It is further submitted that he never received any notice/summons/warrants issued by any Court with regard to pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. It is further submitted that the accused who faced trial were acquitted on ground of non compliance of provisions of Sections 41, 42 and 52A of NDPS Act and the trial Court further held that the concerned investigating officers were not competent to investigate the matter as they were holding ORP rank of Assistant Sub Inspector and in this regard, the trial Court referred to judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Bikkar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 16. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the given circumstances there are very bleak chances of conviction of the petitioner in the present case as he is similarly situated to the persons who were already acquitted vide judgment Annexure P-4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even otherwise the impugned order was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. So, prayer is made that the present petition be allowed and petitioner be allowed to appear before the trial Court to face trial.
4. The present petition is resisted by the State counsel who submits that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were conducted by the Court concerned and there is no illegality in the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner evaded his arrest and was finally declared as proclaimed person vide impugned order Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that petitioner should surrender before the Court concerned to face trial. However, the State counsel has not disputed the fact that co-accused who faced trial were acquitted vide judgment dated 17.09.2021 Annexure P-4. It is further submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
6. As per Annexure P-2, FIR in this case was registered against unknown persons and recovery of commercial quantity of poppy husk was effected from Bolero Pickup which was found parked. Later on Sarwan, Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu along with petitioner and one Sahi Ram were nominated as accused. The police failed to arrest the petitioner while co-accused Sarwan, Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu were arrested and they faced trial and were acquitted vide judgment dated 17.09.2021 Annexure P-4. The State counsel has admitted that State did not file any appeal against the said judgment. As per judgment Annexure P-4, it appears that trial Court while referring to decision of Division Bench of this Court in Bikkar Singh’s case (supra) held that the police officials who investigated the case were not competent to do so, as they were not holding regular rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. In case, the petitioner is allowed to appear before the trial Court to face trial, he is
