IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA th ON THE 26 OF APRIL, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14964 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

BHARAT SANG KENDRIYA NARCOTICS BUREAU THROUGH VISHESH LOK ABHIYOJAK (NARCOTICS)

KAARYALAYA UP NARCOTICS AAYUKT, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE)

AND PREMSINGH SHEKHAWAT S/O UMMED SINGH SHEKHAWAT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O: NARSAS, WARD NO.2, DANI RAJPUTAN, TEHSIL LAXMANGARH, DISTRICT SIKAR (RAJASTHAN)

.....RESPONDENTS This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, District Neemuch whereby it has held that it does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.

02. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.02.2024 on receipt of a secret information at the office of CBN at Neemuch as regards transportation of contraband, the Police party reached Udaipur Bheelwada Marg at Gangrar, Tollnaka and stopped a Tractor Trolla bearing registration No.RJ-01-GB-4676 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA and recovered total 1647.230 kg. of contraband poppy straw from the same. Thereafter, the vehicle alongwith the contraband was taken to the office of the CBN at Neemuch where the process of search and seizure was carried out. On the basis of the recovery made, the accused has been implicated and arrested for the present offence. Thereafter, he was produced before the trial Court for seeking his Police remand when the impugned order has been passed by it holding that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the spot of the offence was Udaipur Bheelwada Road, Gangrar Tollnaka which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of District Neemuch and falls within the jurisdiction of District Udaipur in Rajasthan.

03. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that as per provisions of Section 178 of the Cr.P.C. the spot of offence would not only be the place where the vehicle containing the contraband was initially stopped and searched but would also include the place where the same was taken and search and seizure was in fact made. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.35531/2021 decided on 09.02.2022 (Kamruddin Vs. Union of India and other connected matters)

In the aforesaid decision, it has been held as under"-

"The supreme contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that all the formalities according to the procedure should have been done on spot. Prima facie, on the basis of meticulous scrutiny, I find nothing illegal on the part of the respondent inasmuch as 'spot' does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but it means a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made. Inevitably, it crystallizes from the charge-sheet that at a place where the vehicle was intercepted, search or recovery was not done, but the accused persons and the vehicle were conducted to nearest police station where seizure memo and other procedural investigation was done. The charge- sheet also bespeaks that after the recovery and seizure was done, the sample was taken in presence of the Magistrate. Albeit, it was a submission of learned counsels for the applicants that the sample Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA was taken and forwarded on 22.12.2020 and the Magistrate was approached on 23.12.2020, however, perusal of charge-sheet negates such submission and infact the sample was taken on 22.12.2020 in presence of Magistrate and it was forwarded for chemical examination on 23.12.2020. Furthermore, perusal of charge-sheet also confirms that there was no procedural flaw in seeking the permission from the Court for destroying the seized contraband. Moreso, I have also gone-through the latest judgment