Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deva @ Devsingh @ Devendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 24 August, 2017
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No. 17/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No 17/2017
Deva @ Devasingh @ Devendra
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.P.Dwivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri S.K.Tiwari,
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State/
respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(24.08.2017) The applicant is aggrieved by framing of charge by Special Judge (NDPS Act) Shivpuri in Special Case No. 7/2016 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the 'NDPS Act'), which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant revision application.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant case are that in the intervening night of 8th and 9th September, 2016, at about 2.20 pm the Sub-Inspector Police Station Kolaras, namely, K.P.Sharma has received information that the applicant Deva @ Davinder Singh, resident of Khokar Road, Kolaras, has kept narcotic drug opium at his residence situated in the farm house. On this information the police reached the house of the applicant but he was not found there and his servant Mathu @ Sandip was found in his residence. The police called younger brother of the applicant through his servant. After reaching of the applicant's younger brother Pratap Singh, the police informed him about the information received from the informant and gave notice -( 2 )- CRR No. 17/2017 under Section 50 of NDPS Act and after that the police made search of the house of the applicant and found 250 gms. opium which was kept in a steel box lying in the bed room of the applicant. The police seized the aforesaid article and after completing the necessary formalities and investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court, Shivpuri.
3. On the basis of charge sheet, learned trial Court has framed the charge under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the instant revision application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has committed error in framing the charge against the applicant. From perusal of the entire charge sheet, it clearly goes to show that the alleged opium was not seized from the possession of the applicant. At the time of seizure the applicant was not even present at the place of incident. The applicant is the resident of village Padora Tahsil Kolaras District Shivpuri and he is not residing in front of four lane, Khokar Road, Kolaras. The agricultural farm where the alleged opium was seized is in the name of one Vimal Kaur D/o Balveer Singh Sikh and he is not the owner of the said farm, obviously the entire case has been foisted against the applicant due to ill-will. In these circumstances, no case under Section 8(c) read with Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act is made out against the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Sharif Khan vs. State of MP, 1997 (2) MPWN 254; Madan vs. State of MP, 2016 Cr.L.R.(M.P.) 61; and, State of Gujarat vs. Khobhar Husainkhan @ Bhir Kesharkhan and others, 2017 (1) Crimes 711 (Guj.).
-( 3 )- CRR No. 17/20175. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and prayed for rejection of the revision application.
6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.
7. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the seized contraband was recovered from the house belonging to the applicant. Although the applicant claims that neither he is the owner of the house nor he is residing in the said house but at the stage of framing of charge the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not to be applied. At that stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material leading the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify framing of charge. The applicant filed some documents to prove his innocence in the present case, but these documents are not the part of the charge sheet, which cannot be looked into at this stage.
8. Suffice it to observe that at the stage of framing of charge elaborate enquiry into the truthfulness of the facts cannot be done. In this regard, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At -( 4 )- CRR No. 17/2017 this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya [(1990) 4 SCC 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 47] .)"
9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgments in the case of Khobhar Husainkhan @ Bhir Kesharkhan (supra) is of no help to the applicant, as the same has been delivered at the stage the matter was finally decided, and not at the stage of framing of charge. In the cases of Sharif Khan and Madan (supra), no contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused and accused was implicated on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused, therefore, the Court found that the accused therein is entitled to be discharged but in the case at hand, the contraband is seized from the house of the applicant, therefore, the said judgments are not applicable in the present matter.
10. Taking this view of the matter, revision application sans substance and is hereby dismissed.
(S.K.Awasthi)
(Yog) Judge