Manipur High Court
Shri L. Tarpon Singh (Luwangthem) Aged ... vs Union Of India Represented By ... on 21 March, 2025
Digitally signed by
KHOIROM KHOIROM
BIPINCHAND BIPINCHANDRA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
RA SINGH 14:29:23 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021
Shri L. Tarpon Singh (Luwangthem) aged about 59 years S/o
(L) L. Gulamjat Singh of Keishampat Thokchom Leikai, P.O &
P.S. & District Imphal West, Manipur- 795001.
.... Petitioner
- Versus -
Union of India represented by Investigation Officer, Central
Bureau of Investigation SCB, Kolkata. CGO Complex, 2nd
Avenue, DF Block, Sector 1, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal
700064.
.... Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU
For the petitioner : Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. W. Darakishwor, Sr. PCCG
Date of hearing : 26.09.2024
Date of Judgment &
Order : 21.03.2025
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner through VC and Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing
for the respondent at length.
[2] The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC,
1973 with the following prayer:
(i) Quash the Criminal Proceeding taken up against the
petitioner/accused in Special Trial Case No. 100 of 2018
pending before the Special Judge (ND&PS) (FTC)
Manipur, with Ref: Special Trial (CBI) Case No. 12 of
2016, Ref: Case No. RC-7/5/2013-Kol. U/S 21/25A/29/32
of the ND & PS Act and U/s 120 (B), 420, 468, 471 and
506 IPC corresponding to FIR No. 11 (1) 2013 SJM PS
U/s 9A/25A/29 of the ND & PS Act and discharge the
petitioner/accused from the said Criminal Proceedings.
(ii) Pass any other appropriate order or orders deem fit for
the ends of justice.
[3] The brief facts of the cases are that basing on the
complaint/report about the information that a huge quantity of illegal
contraband drugs has been transported from Kolkata to Imphal by Deccan
Cargo, dated 11.01.2013 made by one, SI E. Ajit Singh of Special
Intelligence Unit (SIU), Imphal West, a Special Intelligence Unit team under
the strict supervision of Inspector K. Ranjit, in-charge, Special Intelligence
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 2
Unit rushed to Imphal Airpot and conducted search at the Cargo unloading
area of the Airport.
[4] While searching, the team found seven carton boxes covered
with white coloured polybags unattended at the Cargo unloading area of the
Imphal Airport as the said cartoon boxes were suspected to be containing
illegal contraband drugs, the team tried to establish the ownership of the
said seven carton boxes. The carton boxes were marked as 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D',
'E', 'F' & 'G' and seized at 6:10 pm of 11.01.2013 by preparing a formal
seizure list on the spot and carried the seized items to the office of SIU/IW
at Reserve Line, I/W.
[5] Immediately, a prayer was submitted to the District Magistrate
seeking permission to open the carton boxes in presence of the Executive
Magistrate, accordingly, Shri L. Geetchandra Singh, Executive Magistrate,
Imphal West District was deputed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West as
independent witness for tasting of the said seized items. In presence of the
Executive Magistrate and a witness at Police Reserve Line, Imphal West, the
following items were contained/seized in the seven carton boxes:
(i) Carton box marked as 'A' contain 6450 (six thousand
four hundred and fifty) strips of Robocoff tablets and
50 packets of Baba 120 premium Chewing tobacco.
(ii) Carton box marked as 'B' contain 6450 (six thousand
four hundred and fifty) strips of Robocoff tablets and
120 packets of Baba 120 premium Chewing tobacco.
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 3
(iii) Carton box marked as 'C' contain 6450 (six thousand
four hundred and fifty) strips of Robocoff tablets and
80 packets of Baba 120 premium Chewing tobacco.
(iv) Carton box marked as 'D' contain 6450 (six thousand
four hundred and fifty) strips of Robocoff tablets.
(v) Carton box marked as 'E' contain 6450 (six thousand
four hundred and fifty) strips of Robocoff tablets and
180 packets of Baba 120 premium Chewing tobacco.
(vi) Carton box marked as 'F' contain 5470(five thousand
four hundred and seventy) strips of Seafied tablets and
200 packets of Baba 120 premium Chewing tobacco.
(v) Carton box marked as 'G' contain 2680 (two thousand
six hundred and eighty) strips of Respified tablets.
Accordingly, the illegal items were seized on 12.01.2013 at
3:20 p.m. and FIR No. 11(01)2013 SJMPS was registered by Singjamei Police
Station.
[6] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above
mentioned FIR case was later transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) for further investigation vide Notification dated 06.03.2013 issued by
Home Department Govt. of Manipur read with notification dated 11.07.2013
issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and
Pensions (Deptt. of Personnel and Training) and an FIR No. RC7/S/2013 was
registered and the same was investigated by the CBI, SCB, Kolkata.
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 4
[7] It is also submitted that upon completion of the said FIR case,
Charge sheet was submitted before the Special Court (ND & PS) Manipur on
16.04.2016 by the I.O. of the CB I, SCB, Kolkata.
Relevant portion of the charge sheet is reproduced herein
below;
"The above facts, circumstances and evidences established that Shri
Rajneesh Kumar (A-1), in criminal conspiracy with Shri Ramveer
Tyagi (A-2), Shri Henry Okram (A-3) and Shri S. Argus Singh (A-4),
fraudulently brought pseudoephedrine tablets into Manipur by flight
which landed at Imphal Airport.
...............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................................
I, therefore submits this Charge Sheet against Rajneesh Kumar (A-1), Shri Ramveer Tyagi (A-2), Shri Henry Okram (A-3) and Shri Sepam Argus Singh (A-4) U/s 21/25A/29/32 of ND&PS Act, 1985 r/w Sections 120B/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 506 IPC, for them to stand trial before this Ld. Court for the commission of the offences as aforementioned.
It is there, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issue necessary processes for the appearance of the accused persons for facing their trial. The Ld. Court may also be pleased to allow the prosecution to adduce any additional evidence, as and when available." Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was not made an accused in the above mentioned Charge sheet.
[8] It is also submitted that by an order dated 10.03.2017 passed in Cril. Misc. Case No. 104/2016/3/2017 by the Special Court (ND & PS), Manipur at Imphal took cognizance against the petitioner u/s 25A, 29 of the ND & PS Act r/w Section 120(B), 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC by exercising powers conferred u/s 193 of CrPC and issued notice for appearance on the CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 5 ground that upon perusal of statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 & 164 CrPC, his complicity in the crime comes to light.
Relevant portion of the order dated 10.03.2017 is reproduced hereunder;
"10. Having heard the ld. counsel for both sides and on perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr. Р.С. including interrogatory statements of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 which were not available at the time of filing the charge sheet and further in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishun Singh & Ors. Vs State of Bihar reported as (1993) 2 SCC16 Para 16 I hold that there would be no bar while taking cognizance of offence against Shri Tarpon Singh who was not named in the charge sheet since his complicity in the crime comes to light from the materials available on record. The decision in the Kishun Singh's case (supra) has been re- affirmed by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dharam Pal & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2013 Cril. L.J. 3900 and it is been held in Para 28, 30 and 31 as follows:
"28. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the views expressed in Kishun Singh's case (supra) that the Session Courts has jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of the offences of the persons not named as offenders but whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record.
Hence, even without recording evidence, upon committal under Section 209, the Session Judge may summon those persons shown in column 2 of the police report to stand trial along with those already named therein.
................................................................................... ............................................................................................
30. The Reference to the effect as to whether the decision in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) was correct or not in Kishun Singh's case (supra), is answered by holding that the decision in Kishun Singh's case was the correct decision and the learned Session Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction, could issue summons under Section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of the committal order passed by the learned Magistrate.
31. Consequent upon our aforesaid decision, the view taken by the Referring Court is accepted and it is held that the decision in the case of Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar and not the decision in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab lays down the law correctly in respect of the powers of the Session Court after committal of the case to it by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.P.C."
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 6
12. It would be pertinent to note that if no cognizance is taken against Shri Tarpon Singh who has not been arrayed as accused nor cited as witness, it will not be fair on the part of this Court to frame charge against the accused persons at this moment. Non-mentioning of Shri Tarpon Singh either as accused or witness would be a serious omission on the part of CBI for which this Court cannot be a mute spectator and has to intervene in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. It would be the duty of the Court to find out the real culprits apart from those sent up for trial by the investigating agency on the basis of materials available on record. Thus, exercising powers conferred under Section 193 of Cr.P.C., cognizance is also taken against Shri Tarpon Singh under Section 25A, 29 of the NDPS Act read with Sec. 120(b), 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. Accordingly, issue notice to Shri Tarpon Singh returnable by 11-4-2017 for appearance and further proceedings."
Further, it is also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court did not exactly mention what actually are the allegation against the petitioner in the said statement of the witnesses U/s 161 and 164 CrPC, the submission/allegation made against the petitioner is that he has made a phone call to K. Ranjit Singh who at that time was an Inspector of Manipur Police heading the Special Intelligence Unit on 11.01.2013 at Imphal Airport.
It is to mention that Shri K. Ranjit Singh, in-charge of the SIU was transferred on the same day and the same SIU was abolished/ disbanded on 15.01.2013 without giving any reason. Statement of (i) Shri K. Ranjit Singh, Inspector Manipur Police, (ii) Shri Th. Gunachandra Singh, ASI,
(iii) Shri Amitabh Singh Arabam, SI were recorded u/s 161 and 164 of CrPC.
In the statement of PW No. 1 (Shri K. Ranjit Singh), it is stated that the petitioner has made a phone call to him through his mobile No. 9856089388 but he didn't respond the alleged phone calls from the petitioner.
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 7 In the statement of PW No. 5 (Th. Gunachandra), it is stated that one Shri Amitabh Singh a police Officer on duty, received one phone call from the petitioner (L. Tarpon) and another person (O. Henry), not to touch the cartons and leave the Airport immediately however, he has stated that he had never talked with the petitioner in his life and he doesn't know the voice of the petitioner.
It is further submitted that though Shri Thokchom Gunachandra Singh stated that Shri Amitabh Singh received phone call from the petitioner (L. Tarpon) and another person (O. Henry), not to touch the cartons and leave the Airport immediately yet Shri Amitabh Singh Arambam in his statement made u/s 161 CrPC does not make any allegation against the petitioner.
[9] Thereafter, on 22.05.2017, after hearing the parties the Ld. Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur in Special Trial (CBI) Case No. 27 of 2016 rejected the prayer for not framing charge against the accused persons and to discharge them from the liability of the case and framed charges against the accused/petitioner and Shri Henry Okram.
Relevant portion of the order dated 22.05.2017 is reproduced hereunder;
"That, you on 11.01.2013 at about 2.45 p.m. you were being a part of the racket of trafficking illicit drugs by intimidating the Police Officer (SIU) on duty at Tullihal Airport Imphal not to seize the Pseudoephedrine tablets which were carrying on from Kolkata to Imphal by Deccan Cargo Flight in contravention of Sec. 8(C) of the NDPS Act and the Rules framed there under and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 25A, 32, 506 of the said Act and within the cognizance of this Court."
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 8 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency could not find any materials to support the above mentioned allegations of phone calls against the petitioner except mentioning an alleged mobile No. 9856089388 allegedly belonging to the petitioner and mobile No. 857517091 and 8575967818 allegedly belonging to Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh (Police Officer) both of which are unconfirmed by material on record. But, unfortunately the Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner only on the allegation/ground that on the said day i.e. 11.01.2013 when the police were to seized the contraband drugs, the petitioner made a phone to Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh of the Special Intelligence Unit of Imphal West and Shri Amitabh Singh Arambam an SI (part of the said SIU).
[10] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are no materials to confirm the owners/users of the alleged mobile numbers and there are also no materials to confirm the alleged calls from the petitioner to Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh on 11.01.2013. Even if the alleged calls were also received, it only creates a mere suspicion but not a grave suspicion for Trial of the petitioner and as such no prima facie case is established against the petitioner for a Criminal Proceedings to continue against the petitioner and prayed to quash the Criminal Proceeding taken up against him on the following ground;
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 9
i. No Prima Facie case is made out against the
petitioner/accused;
ii. Materials on record of the case even if unrebutted does not make a conviction of the petitioner/accused reasonably possible;
iii. No legal evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner;
iv. To prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of Justice;
v. To avoid wastage of Public time when Prima Facie case not disclosed against the petitioner;
vi. To save the accused from the avoidable harassment and expenditure;
vii. The respondent failed to comply with sub-sec (2) of sec 52 A of NDPS Act.
In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the procedures mandated u/s 52 A of the NDPS are to be complied and non-
compliance of the same vitiate the trial as the compliance of the said procedure are held to be primary evidence in the trial of NDPS related cases.
[11] Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for the respondent submits that affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, wherein it has been mentioned to dismiss the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner for quashing the Criminal Proceeding taken up against him in Special Trial Case No. 100 of 2018 pending before the Special Judge (ND&PS) (FTC) Manipur, with Ref: Special Trial (CBI) Case No. 27 of 2016, Ref: Case No. RC-
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 10 7/5/2013-Kol. U/s 21/25A/29/32 of the ND & PS Act and u/s 120 (B), 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC corresponding to FIR No. 11(1) 2013 SJM PS U/s 9A/25A/29 of the ND&PS Act and discharge the petitioner/accused from the said criminal proceeding.
It is further submitted that;
(a) During the cross examination by the defense Counsel against Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh, dated 23.06.2017 before the Trial Court in relation to ST. No.27/2016/207/16 as P.W. No.1, he stated that while giving statement u/s 161 CrPC before the IO on that day, the particulars of Mr. Tarpon (accused/petitioner) and also his mobile No. bearing No. 9856089388 were mentioned by him. But, he does not know whether the said particulars were recorded by the IO or not. Moreover, the present petitioner was the close side of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of Manipur who had threatened Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh, Inspector of Manipur Police to conceal about the calls made to him by the present petitioner before the IO. It is also revealed from the deposition of Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh before the Ld. Judge, Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur that on 17.01.2013 after the incident occurred at about 9.30 pm some unknown persons came near the entrance gate of his residence at Malom and made open fire and fled away. He made a complaint to the Nambol P.S. but no such registration or CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 11 general diary entry was done in the concerned Police station. It is also pertinent to mention that Shri Ranjit, Inspector in Charge of the Special Investigation Unit, which had caught hold of the consignment on 11.01.2013 was transferred from SIU on the same day i.e. 11.01.2013 vide Order No. 1/1C-4/RO/2013 dt. 11.01.2013 of Shri N. Herojit Singh, MPS, Addl.
Superintendent of Police (LS) Imphal West District, Manipur as the SP was on leave. Although Manipur has been suffering from the menace of narcotics drugs, SIU was disbanded on 15.01.2013 in spite of the good work done by the SIU. Further, no reason was given for disbanding the SIU. The Note Sheet showing the transfer of Shri Ranjit Singh that has been seized from Manipur Police has shown no reason for his transfer. Moreover, immediately after the drugs were seized in this case by the Special Investigation Unit of Imphal West District, this Special Investigation Unit was abolished with immediate effect and all the officers and men attached to this Unit from different PSs/Branches were instructed to report to their places of original posting immediately. Further, it is to mention that Shri Konsam Jayanta Singh, the then SP of Imphal west stated that he had disbanded the SIU on the instruction of his Superior Officers and some Ministers which he did not want to disclose their identities. From the above facts, the case is fully CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 12 corroborated with the accused/petitioner who is seeking for quashing of the Criminal proceeding taken against him.
(b) The statement of Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh made in his deposition dated 23.06.2017 before the Trial Court in relation to ST. No. 27/2016/207/16 as PW No. 1 during cross examination is reproduced herewith:
"It is also true that I did not respond to the alleged phone calls from Mr. Tarpon. It is true that I never mentioned the mobile No. of Shri Tarpon Singh while I deposed my statement before the Ld. JMIC, Bidhannager due to some threats to my life. It is true that I am disclosing the alleged mobile No. of Mr. Tarpon Singh before this Ld. Court even if I am still stuck with threat to my life. It is true that due to threat in my life I did not disclose the name of the powerful persons who were the owners of the seized illegal drugs while recording my statement U/s 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC. I have every suspicion that the owners of the said illegal drugs belonged to Mr. Henry and Mr. Tarpon. I deny the suggestion that I never received any mobile phone call from Mr. Tarpon at any point of time regarding the present case. I also deny the suggestion that I intentionally mentioned the name of Tarpon Singh to indict him in the present case due to some personal reasons. I deny the suggestion that Mr. Tarpon Singh is not involved in the present case."
From the above deposition of Shri Kangjam Ranjit Singh during cross examination by the defense counsel, it clearly showed that he made a conversation with Mr. Tarpon Singh through phone and had not given any comment/reply/response to the instructions by Mr. Tarpon during the conversation.
(c) Since the witness Shri Amitabh Singh Arambam had fear of threat from Mr. Tarpon (accused/petitioner) he had not made any allegation against the present accused/petitioner. It is also mentioned in his statement u/s 161 CrPC that he had received a few phone calls in his mobile from different persons at the CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 13 time of the incident asking him to go away from the Airport. He further stated that those persons are really influential and he could not divulge the name of the persons for if he divulge the names, there would be threat on the life of his family and himself.
(d) There is ample evidence in support of the aforementioned allegations made against the petitioner.
(e) The accused/petitioner was not charge-sheeted by the Investigative Agency, the CBI but the Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur at Imphal on its own motion from the available prima facie evidence framed the charges against the present accused/petitioner on 22/05/2017 exercising the special discretionary powers conferred to the Court u/s 319 of the CrPC after taking into the evidences tendered in the course of the trial wherein the involvement or complicity of the accused/petitioner, though not named by the investigating agency, has surfaced which necessitates the exercise of the discretionary power conferred by Section 319 of the CrPC.
Moreover, once cognizance of an offence is taken, it becomes the duty of the Court to find out who the offenders really are and if the Court finds that apart from the persons sent up by the Police, some other persons are involved, it is the duty of the Court to proceed against those persons by summoning them because the summoning of the additional CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 14 accused is part of the proceeding initiated by the taking cognizance of an offence. The Special Court (ND&PS), Manipur charged the present accused/petitioner after prima facie case was made out against the accused/petitioner. It relies upon the case of Kishan Singh and Ors. vs .State of Bihar on 11 January, 1993@ para 2.02 and Jogendra Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2012].
(f) After a long period of more than 4(four) years of gap as well as the trial is under the stage of examining Prosecution evidence, the accused/petitioner freshly filed the application u/s 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing the Criminal proceedings taken against him in Special Trial Case No. 100 of 2018 pending before the Special Judge (ND&PS)(FTC) Manipur, with Ref: Special Trial (CBI) No.27 of 2016 so as to delay the present trial proceeding.
Mention is also made here that the accused/petitioner is also one of the accused in the Special Trial Case No. 100 of 2018 which is being vigorously monitored by the High Court of Manipur in PIL No. 38 of 2020 (Re- monitoring of Criminal Cases against MPs/MLAs Vs. State of Manipur and & 7 Ors). As per the direction of the High Court, the present trial case is treated as top priority by the Hon'ble Special Judge (ND&PS) (FTC) Manipur and the trial of the case is in full swing on day- to-day basis. Moreover, the suo-moto PIL 38 of 2020 pending CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 15 before the High Court of Manipur has been taken up as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP.(C) No. 699 of 2016 titled Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
It is also submitted that, the case status of the Special Trial Case No. 100 of 2018 has been reported before the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur for every hearing till date. At present, out of 107 listed prosecution witnesses, so far, 66 witnesses have been examined-in-chief and cross-examined and 6 prosecution witnesses reported dead. The remaining prosecution witnesses are all from outside the state of Manipur and advance steps have been taken to summon the remaining witnesses for speedy proceedings of the case. If not for the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the trial of the case would have been completed.
(g) The then Government in power headed by Okram Ibobi Singh, who was a very close friend of the present accused/petitioner, transferred the Inspector in-Charge of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), Kangjam Ranjit Singh on the same day the drugs were seized i.e. 11/01/2013 and the same SIU was disbanded without giving any reason on 15/01/2013. This showed the malafide intention of the then Government and powerful CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 16 persons in power to misuse the Law by trying to let the real culprits involved escape from justice.
[12] Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted their written argument and the same are perused. [13] Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgment;
1) Manik Taneja & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 [Para No. 8, 11, & 12]
2) Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. in (20080 12 SCC 346 [para 9]
3) Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharasthra reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 [para 16]
4) P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 [para25]
5) Yusuf @ Asif vs. State reported in 2023 INSC 912 Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 3191 of 2023 [para 12, 13, 15, 16 & 17]
6) Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 178 [para 26]
7) Babu vs. State of Kerala reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189 [para nos. 38, 39, 40, 42 & 43] In Manik Taneja & Anr vs State of Karnataka & Anr. [(2015) 7 SCC 423], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"8. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is us to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 17 continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
............................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................
11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:
'503. Criminal Intimidation. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation. A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 18 In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Ld. Special Court passed the impugned order after considering facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the witnesses and interrogatory statement of the accused and thereafter, considered that a prima facie case was established the offences alleged against the accused petitioner.
In Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 346], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"9. In R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960 (3) SCR 388) this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction,
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (SCR p.393) In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-
circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 19 to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC
335). A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (SCC pp.378-79, para (102) '(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 20 The above citation made by the petitioner is also not reliable in the present case as at this stage of the trial of the case, it cannot be said that the allegation against the petitioner does not constitute the offence alleged and cannot be said that the evidence adduced fails to prove the charge as the Trial Court is yet to complete the trial.
In Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharastra [(2008) 10 SCC 394], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"16. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted make a conviction reasonably possible. (See State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal.)".
The Ld. Trial Court passed the order for inclusion of the present petitioner as one of the accused and subsequently charged the petitioner under the Act & Rules of the NDPS after having found sufficient ground against the accused.
In P. Vujayan vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2010) 2 SCC 398], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"25. As discussed earlier, Section 227 in the new Code confers special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the records and documents, he find that "there is not CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 21 sufficient ground" for proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if not, he will discharge the accused. This provision was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure".
It is not at all related and reliable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
In Yusuf @ Asif vs. State [(2023) INSC 912 in Criminal Appeal No. 3191 of 2023],the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"12. A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions, as also stated earlier, reveals that when any contraband/narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer so referred to in sub section (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.
13. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate. No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
15. In Mohanlal's case, the apex court while dealing with Section 52A of the NDPS Act clearly laid down that it is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and then to make an application to the Magistrate for the purposes of getting its correctness certified. It has been further laid down that the samples CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 22 drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of the trial.
16. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stands vitiated.
17. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the failure of the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence vitiates the conviction and as such in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the trial court convicting the appellant and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside."
The present case is at the stage of trial and not yet given findings by the Ld. Speical Judge as such, the present case relied upon by the petitioner is not reliable in the present case.
In Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2015) 7 SCC 178], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"26. The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case. Non- production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made."
The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above paragraph goes against the petitioner.
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 23 In Babu vs. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that -
"38. The evidence given by the Telephone Booth Operator, Krishnan (PW.14) had been to the extent that the appellant had gone to his booth and telephoned someone. He stated that he could only be sure that the accused had come once or twice around the incident. He further stated that normally the people dial the telephone on their own and that there was a separation between his seat and the place from where the appellant had made the phone call. Consequently, both the Trial Court and the High Court came to the conclusion that the evidence offered by Krishnan (PW.14) was not reliable.
39. The High Court, however, stated that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution's version that the appellant had called at the residence of the deceased thrice on the evening of the date of incident as this has been established by the evidence of Sini (PW.2) and Omana Poulose (PW.9). The High Court did not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sini (PW.2) and Omana Poulose (PW.9) in this regard. The Court failed to notice the observation of the Trial Court that Sini (PW.2) and Omana Poulose (PW.9) both were sister and mother (P.2) of the deceased Sweety and had inimical feelings towards the appellant since they have come to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for her death and their deposition had material improvements from their statements recorded during investigation.
40. The Trial Court had further observed that there was a further irregularity surrounding the investigation into the alleged phone calls. In his evidence, Krishnan (PW.14) has stated that the telephone booth was computerised and that there would have been records of the phone calls that had been made on the given day (indicating what time, the calls had been made and to what phone number, they had been made). The Investigating Officer made no attempt to recover the said records nor did he make an attempt to examine the employer of Krishnan (PW.14), who received a copy of these records every month. The High Court has failed to notice the above-said observations of the Trial Court.
42. It is strange that Paily (PW.21), the Investigating Officer did not make any reference at any stage to Krishnan (PW.14) in his evidence before the court. In case, the High Court as well as the trial Court found Krishnan (PW.14) to be unreliable and Paily (PW.21), the I.O. did not make any reference to Krishnan (PW.14), nor any record of the computerised call sheet was produced in evidence, only the statements of Sini (PW.2) and Omana Poulose (PW.9) existed to further the prosecution's theory that the appellant made three phone calls on the day of the incident. Sini (PW.2) and Omana Poulose (PW.9) might have an inimical attitude towards the appellant after thinking that appellant was responsible for Sweety's death. The CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 24 prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant made three phone calls to the residence of the deceased prior to the incident.
43. We are of the opinion that all of the aforesaid circumstances raise great doubts about the prosecution's theory regarding the three phone calls by the appellant to the residence of the deceased on the evening of the incident, being an indication of the anxiety of the appellant. Thus, the very genesis of the case stands falsified"
The reliance made by the petitioner in support of his case is not at all reliable to the petitioner.
[14] Mr. W. Darakishwor, learned Sr. PCCG appearing for the respondent relied upon the following Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments and the relevant portions of the same are extracted herein below:
1) Suman vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2010) 1 SCC 205] -
"27. In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, d can be proceeded against under Section 319 CrPC if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. As a corollary, we hold that the process issued against the appellant under Section 319 CrPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the e complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her."
2) Laxmibai & Anr vs. Bhagatwantbuva & Ors [(2013) 4 SCC 97] -
"39. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a sign of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather that the multiplicity of plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 25 evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Where the law required the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that the number of witnesses produced do not carry any weight."
3) Manik Taneja & Anr vs State of Karnataka & Anr [(2015) 7 SCC 423], "12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
4) Prashant Bharati vs State of NCT Delhi [(2013) 9 SCC 293], "30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 26 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
[15] Heard the learned counsels at length and perused the case docket along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both parties and also submitted citations in support of their cases. [16] It is an admitted position of fact that the present petitioner was not named in the FIR and also in the charge sheet but, it is a case that during the course of the trial, the Ld. Trial Court from the statement of the accused found a prima facie case against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 10.03.2017 passed in Cril. Misc. Case No. 104/2016/3/2017 includes the present petitioner as one of the accused and cognizance was taken against the present petitioner. Para No. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of the order dated 10.03.2017 is reproduced herein below:
"7. The Ld. counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the main allegation made by the CBI against the accused Shri Henry Okram relates to a phone call to Inspector K. Ranjit Singh, likewise another phone call was also made by one Tarpon Singh to K. Ranjit Singh. Thus, there was sufficient materials to summon the said Tarpon Singh as additional accused for fair trial. Non mentioning of the name of the said Tarpon Singh in the charge sheet by the CBI is a serious omission. The Ld. counsel further submits that the other CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 27 persons who made phone calls to Shri K. Ranjit Singh like Shri Henry Okram in connection with the incident have not been cited as witnesses even though they were not arrayed as accused persons in the present case for the reasons best known to the CBI which is quite insignificant. With the above said submissions, the ld. defence counsel has prayed for issuing summons to the said Tarpon Singh whose name was mentioned in the statement of witnesses for fair trial.
8. Per contra, the ld. Spl. P.P. for CBI has contended that cognizance of the offence has already been taken against the above named five accused persons should be done at the time of taking cognizance of the case on 18/04/2016. Further, the ld. Spl. P.P. postulated the legal position u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and contended that the present application is not maintainable at this stage. Thus, he has prayed for rejection of the present application. However, the ld. Spl. P.P. does not dispute and counter the defence submission that the other persons besides Shri Henry Okram who also made phone calls to the said K. Ranjit Singh in connection with the incident have not been arrayed as accused persons nor cited as witnesses in the present case.
9. Replying to the argument of the ld. Spl. P.P., the ld. defence counsel has submitted / reiterated that the other person who made phone calls to the said K. Ranjit Singh, should also be arrayed as additional accused persons. Since the CBI has not mentioned the said persons in the charge sheet, it would be justified to take cognizance against the said person u/s 193 CrPC even though the preset application u/s 319 CrPC is otherwise incompetent at this stage of the case as submitted by the ld. Sp. P.P. for fair trial. In support of his contention the ld. counsel relies upon the case of Kishun Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported as (1993) 2 SCC 16 @ Para 16 and submits that this Court has jurisdiction u/s 193 of CrPC to take cognizance of offence of persons not named as offenders, whose complicity in the crime comes to light from the material available on record.
10. Having heard the ld. counsel for both sides and on perusal of the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 and 164 CrPC including interrogatory statements of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 which were not available at the time of filing the charge sheet and further in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishun Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1993) 2 SCC 16 @ Para 16, I hold that there would be no bar while taking cognizance of offence against Shri Tarpon Singh who was not named in the charge sheet since his complicity in the crime comes to light from the materials available on record. The decision in the Kishun Singh's case(supra) has been reaffirmed by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2013 Cril. L.J. 3900 and it is been held in Para 28, 30 and 31 as follows:
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 28 "28. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the views expressed in Kishun Singh's case(supra) that the Session Courts has jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of the offence of the persons not named as offenders but whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record. Hence, even without recording evidence, upon committal under Section 209, the Session Judge may summon those persons shown in column 2 of the police report to stand trial along with those already named therein.
.....................
30. The reference to the effect as to whether the decision in Ranjit Singh's case (supra) was correct or not in Kishun Singh's case (supra), is answered by holding that the decision in Kishun Singh's case was the correct decision and the learned Session Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction, could issue summons under Section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of the committal order passed by the learned Magistrate.
31. Consequent upon our aforesaid decision, the view taken by the Referring Court is accepted and it is held that the decision in the case of Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar and not the decision in Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab lays down the law correctly in respect of the powers of the Session Court after committal of the case to it by the learned Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.P.C."
12. It would be pertinent to note that if no cognizance is taken against Shri Tarpon Singh who has not been arrayed as accused nor cited as witness, it will not be fair on the part of this Court to frame charge against the accused persons at this moment. Non mentioning of Shri Tarpon Singh either as accused or witness would be a serious omission on the p art of CBI for which this Court cannot be a mute spectator and has to intervene in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. It would be the duty of the Court to find out the real culprits apart from those sent up for trial by the investigating agency on the basis of material available on record. Thus, exercising powers conferred under Section 193 of CrPC, cognizance is also taken against Shri Tarpon Singh under Section 25A, 29 of the NDPS Act read with Sec. 120(b), 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. Accordingly, issue notice to Shri Tarpon Singh returnable by 11-4-2017 for appearance and further proceedings."
And for convenience, Section 193 of CrPC is reproduced herein below:
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 29
Section 193 of CrPC -
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code." [17] After perusal of the pleading of the petitioner and the respondent and also after hearing the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, with their citations in support of their cases, apart from the views given herein above by this Court, this Court is of the view that the only point to be discussed here is, even though the petitioner is not named in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, the Trial Court i.e. the Special Court (ND & PS) can implead the present petitioner as one of the accused and charged along with the other already charged accused in the middle of the trial and whether the Act of the Special Trial Judge is permissible in the eyes of law or not.
[18] For this matter, I have gone through the entire case docket including the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the citations made by both parties in support of their case, in that it is found from the record that it is indeed mentioned the name of the petitioner in their recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 and 164 CrPC including interrogatory statement of the accused Nos. 1 to 4. This Court is relying on the operative portions of the order dated 10.03.2017 of the Ld. Trial Court for which the relevant paras were reproduced herein above and this Court is of the considered opinion that the Ld. Special Judge rightly CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 30 included the present petitioner as one of the accused and rightly charged the accused under relevant Sections of ND & PS Act and Rules why because -
(i) The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC including interrogatory statement of the accused mentioned the name of the present petitioner which shows his involvement in the present case.
(ii) The above statements were not available at the time of filing charge sheet.
(iii) In the cross examination, the PW No. 1 mentioned the name of the present petitioner including his mobile phone number and mentioned about the intervention of the higher authority during course of the seizure of the contraband drugs. Further, the PW No. 1 disclosed that he did not disclose the mobile number of the present petitioner due to threats to his life.
(iv) The present petition for quashing the FIR was filed after 4 (four) years gap and the stage of the case was for examination of prosecution witness.
(v) The present petitioner was one of the accused in the Special Trial Case No. 100 of 2018 which is/was demonitored by the High Court of Manipur in PIL No. 38 of 2020 and as per direction of the Court, the present CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 31 trial case is treated as top priority by the Trial Court. On top of that, the said suo-moto case PIL No. 38 of 2020 pending before the High Court of Manipur has been taken up as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No. 699 of 2016.
[19] Now, therefore, this Court is to examine whether the steps taken by the Ld. Trial Court was as per provision of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for that, this Court is relying on the following judgments of the Apex Court -
1) Suman vs. State of Rajasthan &Anr. [(2010) 1 SCC 205] -
"27. In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 CrPC if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. As a corollary, we hold that the process issued against the appellant under Section 319 CrPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the e complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her."
2) Laxmibai & Anr vs. Bhagatwantbuva & Ors [(2013) 4 SCC 97] -
"39. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a sign of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 32 rather that the multiplicity of plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Where the law required the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has been held that the number of witnesses produced do not carry any weight."
3) Manik Taneja & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. [(2015) 7 SCC 423], "12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
4) Prashant Bharati vs State of NCT Delhi [(2013) 9 SCC 293], "30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 33 persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
This Court, after examination of the reliance made by the respondents in support of their case as reproduced hereinabove of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is satisfied that the observation made herein above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reproduced above is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
[20] In the facts and circumstances as narrated above and in the light of the observation made above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the Ld. Special Court have taken the steps to implead the present petitioner as one of the accused and subsequent framing of the charge as per the provision of law under ND &PS Act and Rules and decided properly under the ambit/provision of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 34 [21] For the reasons stated above, while this Court is in agreement
with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Ld. Trial Court passed the said order of impleading/arraying the present petitioner as one of the accused and the subsequent framing of charge under the provision of Act & Rules of NDPS are done after application of mind. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidences adduced by the witnesses under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC including their statements made before the Court and in the light of the series of observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this matter, and on top of that, since the Ld. Special Court have the power under Section 193 of Code to summon the petitioner as his involvement in the commission of the crime prima facie appeared from the record as well as the statements of the witnesses and interrogatory statement including the statement of PW before the Court in the course of trial, this Court see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as it is well settled that once it is found that the power exists for the Special Court to exercise its power. Accordingly, this Court in the light of the observation and discussion made above come to the conclusion that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
[22] Accordingly, the present case stands dismissed and disposed of.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lucy/Bipin
CRIL. PETN. No. 14 of 2021 Page 35