Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rahul Jangid S/O Shri Vinod Kumar Jangid vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 March, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2025:RJ-JP:12288]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 116/2025
Rahul Jangid S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Jangid, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 75A, Saraswati Path, Karni Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
(Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor Narcotics
Control Bureau (NCB)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonal Gupta, Adv. with
Mr. Vichitr Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP
with Mr. Vaibhav Jankhra, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Judgment
DATE OF RESERVED :: 07/03/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : : 24/03/2025
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
25.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan First
(hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Sessions Case
No.60/2024, by which learned trial Court has ordered to frame
charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 8/20, 8/22C and 8/27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
present case against the petitioner has been made merely on the
basis of suspicion. The order impugned dated 25.10.2024 of
learned trial Court is patently illegal, erroneous and deserves to be
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (2 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
quashed and set aside. A false case has been made out against
the petitioner only with a motive to arrest him. Learned counsel
also submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are highly
interested and narrated the story in highly flimsy manner. Learned
counsel contended that the contraband in question has not been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner,
therefore, no case under the provisions of NDPS Act is made out.
It has also been contended that the mandatory provision of
Section 50A of NDPS Act has been violated because the order for
authorization of the controlled delivery operation has been issued
by Deputy Director General, Narcotics Control Bureau (for short
'NCB'), whereas, as per the mandatory provision of Section 50A of
NDPS Act only Director General, NCB can pass an order to
undertake the controlled delivery operation. It has also been
contended that as per the notification No.S.O.3900(E) issued in
the Gazette of India dated 30.10.2019, Officer of rank of Inspector
can file the charge-sheet against the accused, whereas, in this
case charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed by a Junior
Intelligence Officer, who was not authorized to file the charge-
sheet. Learned trial Court has ordered to frame the charges
against the petitioner in a very flimsy manner, without applying its
judicial mind, therefore, the impugned order of framing charges
under various sections of NDPS Act is liable to be quashed and the
petitioner is entitled to be discharged. Therefore, the petition be
allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of
The State of Karnataka Vs. Chandrasha in Criminal Appeal
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (3 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
No.2646 of 2024, decided on 26.11.2024, Ashok Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 (2) SCC 67,
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 773, Madan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of H.P.,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 465, Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala,
reported in (2000) 8 SCC 590, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev
Singh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 and the judgment passed
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition
No.6853/2023 (Mr. Junaid Hussain Haveri Vs. Union of
India) and connected matters decided on 12.09.2023 and the
judgment passed by the High Court of Rajashtan in case of Gopal
Gadari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 SCC
Online Raj 3989.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the NCB has opposed the petition and supported the order impugned. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that as per Section 50A of the NDPS Act, the Director General of NCB or any other officer authorized by him on his behalf may undertake the controlled delivery operation of any consignment. He further contended that in this matter the Director General of NCB was on official tour to Japan from 28.01.2024 to 05.02.2024, therefore, vide memorandum dated 25.01.2024, the Director General of NCB authorized Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Deputy Director General to look after the work of Director General of NCB. He also contended that Deputy Director General Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta has made the authorization order in this matter to undertake the controlled delivery operation, therefore, there is nothing illegal in this matter. He further contended that (Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12288] (4 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025] this case is being investigated by NCB and as per notification No.S.O.3900(E) dated 30.10.2019, Junior Intelligence Officer of NCB is also empowered to file the charge-sheet and in this matter the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed by Mr. Mahesh Chand Meena, Junior Intelligence Officer, NCB, Jaipur, who is fully empowered to do so, therefore, in this regard also there is nothing illegal. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that the case against the petitioner is of controlled delivery operation, as defined under Section 2(viib) of NDPS Act. As per the facts of this case, the petitioner had placed an order of contraband 'LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide)' and 'Ganja' from a vendor of Chennai and the vendor sent the parcel of contraband to the residential address of the petitioner. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the parcel has been seized as per the procedure prescribed, therefore, the question of seizure of contraband from the possession of petitioner does not arise in this case. He further contended that learned trial Court has passed the order of framing charges against the petitioner, after applying its judicial mind. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that at the stage of framing of charges only prima facie case is to be seen and meticulous evidence is not required. He further contended that in this case a parcel containing contraband was to be delivered at the address of the petitioner and it was the petitioner, who ordered the purchase of the contraband and the payment of the contraband has been made by the petitioner by way of online payment mode and the order of contraband was also made online and there is sufficient material to prove this chain of (Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12288] (5 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025] circumstances. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard and perused the material made available on record and also perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2024, a secret credible information was received by the NCB Officers that a parcel with tracking number ET987749165IN (hereinafter referred to as 'parcel') was suspected to contain narcotic substances and was intended for delivery at Jaipur to the petitioner-Rahul Jangid, which was sent from Salem, Chennai. A team was constituted for the purpose of preventive action. On 31.01.2024, an order under Section 50A of the NDPS Act was issued by the Deputy Director General, NCB, New Delhi Headquarters, authorizing Mr. Kapil Sharma to conduct a controlled delivery operation of the said parcel. The Post Master of the Post Office at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur was informed about the said parcel and was requested for confidential operation. On 02.02.2024, the Post Master informed Mr. Kapil Sharma that the suspected parcel had reached at the Vaishali Nagar Post Office. The parcel bearing the address of the petitioner as 'Rahul Jangid, 75A Saraswati Path, Karni Vihar, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302021'. Following the procedure, the parcel was searched in the presence of the independent witnesses. From the parcel '10 LSD blot papers' weighing 0.4 grams were recovered. A similar dummy parcel was prepared and was sent for delivery to the petitioner's address. The Post Master after confirming the identity of the petitioner by his 'Aadhar Card' asked the petitioner for delivery of the parcel to (Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12288] (6 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025] which the petitioner admitted that the parcel has been sent for him and he received the parcel, after marking his signatures on the postal receipt. Thereafter, during investigation, the voluntary statement of the petitioner under Section 67(c) of the NDPS Act was recorded in which the petitioner admitted that some more parcels were also coming to his address and other parcel containing 23.4 grams of 'Ganja' also arrived at the post office, which was also seized by the narcotic team. The seized contraband was sent for examination in Forensic Science Laboratory, where the seized articles were confirmed to be 'LSD' and 'Ganja'. After the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court has passed the impugned order of charge after hearing both the parties and after discussing the matter in detail and formal charges for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20, 8/22C & 8/27 of NDPS Act have been framed against the petitioner.
7. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 50A of the NDPS Act. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 31.01.2024 authorization to undertake the controlled delivery operation against the petitioner was issued by the Deputy Director General, NCB, whereas, it should have been issued by the Director General.
8. Section 50A of NDPS Act reads as under:-
"Power to under take controlled delivery.-
The Director General of Narcotics Control
Bureau constituted under sub-section(3) of
section 4 or any other officer authorized by him (Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12288] (7 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025] in this behalf, may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, undertake controlled delivery of any consignment to -
(a) any destination in India;
(b) a foreign country, in consultation with the competent authority of such foreign country to which such consignment is destined, in such manner as may be prescribed."
9. A bare reading of Section 50A of NDPS Act makes it clear that the controlled delivery operation can be undertaken by Director General of NCB or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention herein that on 25.01.2024, Director General of NCB issued a memorandum to authorize Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Deputy Director General, to look after the work of Director General of NCB. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta issued the order dated 31.01.2024 to authorize Mr. Kapil Sharma to undertake the controlled delivery operation against the petitioner. As Deputy Director General was authorized by the Director General of NCB, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of provision of Section 50A of NDPS Act.
10. It has also been made a ground to assail the impugned order that the charge-sheet itself has not been filed by the competent authority, therefore, no prosecution can be launched on the basis of the said charge-sheet. In this behalf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the notification No.S.O.3900(E) dated 30.10.2019 and contended that the charge-sheet has not been filed by the competent authority, wherein, in the notification itself the Junior Intelligence Officer of NCB has been empowered to file complaint relating to (Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12288] (8 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025] offences under NDPS Act before the Special Court and the charge- sheet in this case has been filed by one Mr. Mahesh Chand Meena, who is Junior Intelligence Officer, NCB, therefore, this argument on behalf of the petitioner is also not tenable.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind before passing the impugned order and has not evaluated the evidence collected during the investigation in the right perspective and has ordered to frame charges against the petitioner in a routine manner. In this regard, this Court is of the view that learned trial Court has passed a detailed order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and has rightly held that at the stage of framing charges only prima facie case is to be seen and recording of detailed reason is not necessary. Learned trial Court has also rightly held that charges against the accused-petitioner can be framed even if there is a strong suspicion, which leads the Court to believe that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the trial Court is not supposed to consider or weigh the evidence with a view to evaluate whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused.
12. Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 554 observed as under:
"16. ...For framing the charges under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. As held in Knati Bhadra Shah and another v. State of West Bengal (2000) (Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12288] (9 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025] 1 SCC 722 : (AIR 2000 SC 522), while exercising power under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the judge is not required record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused."
13. Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam & Ors. v Kunj Behari & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 has observed with regards to exercising of power under Section 482 CrPC vis-à-vis quashing of order of framing of charge as under:
"8. ...In so far as the High Court's view that "in the interest of justice, it is the duty of the Court under S. 482, Cr. P. C. to go into the merits of the evidence and appreciate correctly the documents and the statements filed by the police", we may only refer to Mohd. Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. 1981 Supp SCC 80: (AIR 1981 SC 1548), where it has been pointed out that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by Court is not required."
14. Further, Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd (supra), with regard to power of the High Court to quash the order of framing of charges, has held as under:
"35. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter."(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (10 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has not made any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita/-
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)