Order :

BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court No.1, whereby the application filed under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been rejected.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is that an FIR No.131/2023 was registered at Police Station Mandfiya, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Section 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was the seizure officer, however, he has subsequently been arraigned as an accused on the allegation that he was part of the conspiracy. After investigation, challan was filed against him and matter is pending for prosecution evidence before the learned trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the incident regarding which the FIR was registered a compliant was submitted by certain individuals, namely Smt. Rekha Khatik and Shri Naresh Khatik, to the office of the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, making serious allegations regarding irregularities, falsification and procedural lapses in the seizure and investigation process undertaken by the Mandfiya Police Station officials. Based upon the said complaint, the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, initiated a departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the members of the seizure team, including the petitioner.

4. The said departmental inquiry is being conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Udaipur, and in the inquiry statements of all the seizure officers, members of the patrol team, and witnesses, as well as interrogation notes of the accused persons were recorded. It is further submitted that these documents and statements are directly connected to the same incident forming the basis of the present NDPS prosecution now pending before the learned trial court.

5. In view thereof, an application was preferred by the petitioner before the learned trial Court under section 94 of the BNSS, seeking summoning of the record of the departmental proceedings so as to enable the petitioner to confront the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application without assigning any cogent or convincing reasons and on wholly untenable grounds. It is argued that the only ground assigned by the trial Court for rejection of the application is that summoning of the departmental record may affect the departmental inquiry. According to learned counsel, such a ground is legally unsustainable, as the mere possibility of departmental proceedings being affected cannot be a valid reason to deny the petitioner an effective opportunity to defend himself in a criminal trial.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a valuable right to defend himself and is entitled to a full and fair opportunity to do so. Since the statements of the witnesses have already been recorded in the departmental proceedings, the same are essential for the purpose of confronting the witnesses during cross-examination.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had also sought copies of the said statements from the concerned department under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, prior to filing the application before the trial court, however, the same were declined citing confidentiality. In the absence of such documents, and in view of the rejection of the application by the trial Court, the petitioner would be rendered effectively defenceless and would be unable to properly put forth his defence in the criminal case.

9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2022 INSC 1177 and State of Orissa v. D