High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md. Raza & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 14 November, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Md. Raza & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 14 November, 2011
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CR. REV. No.998 of 2011
                  1. Md. Raza, son of Md. Nizamuddin
                  2. Md. Inamul son of Md. Ekram
                     Both residents of village- Bari Dhankar,
                     police Station- Sabour in the district of
                     Bhagalpur.
                                                      ... Petitioners.
                                                  Versus
                   The State Of Bihar               ... Opp. Party.
                                              -----------

For the petitioners :Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Sinha,
Sr. Adv.

:Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, Adv.

For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP

2. 14.11.2011 The accused- petitioners have

preferred this revision application against the

order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the 1st

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in

Mojahidpur (Babarganj) P. S. Case No. 128 of

2010, G. R. No. 2311 A of 2010 by which the

petition to discharge them from the offence

punishable under Sections 20/22 of the N.D.P.S.

Act has been rejected.

The prosecution case, in brief, is

that on 21.8.2010 after getting information

that hue quantity of ganja is available in the

Mill Premises of Lale Sah @ Mani Kant Sah in

Gulab Bigha Mohalla, the S. I. Rajesh Kumar

with the police party went there and in

presence of the witnesses, the premises was

searched and 40 packets containing 10 kg of

Ganja each being total quantity of 147 kg. was
2

recovered. Accused Nawal Sah failed to produce

any documents regarding the possession of the

same and a case was registered under Section

20/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. During investigation

it appears that the petitioners were indulged

in this illegal possession of ganja in the

premises of the mill of co-accused Nawal Sah.

Accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted.

Cognizance was taken and the case was

transferred to the Court of 1st Additional

Sessions Judge for trial where a petition dated

10.6.2011 filed on behalf of the accused-

petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their

discharge has been rejected by the learned

trial Court.

            The        main      contention           of     learned

counsel     for     the        petitioners          is     that   the

petitioners       have    been     falsely      implicated         in

this case at the instance of the main accused

Nawal Sah which can be said to be a defence

version of Nawal Sah. After much delay, the

witnesses have stated that the petitioners have

taken premises of rice mill for business of

Dalada and coconut oil from where the ganja has

been recovered. Neither the seizure witnesses

nor co-accused Nawal Sah has stated anything in
3

their statement.

Learned counsel for the State submits

that during investigation independent witnesses

have stated that paddy mill of accused Nawal

Sah was closed and one of the rooms of paddy

mill had been let out to the petitioners for

the business of coconut oil and dalada, from

that let out room ganja has been recovered.

Learned counsel for the State has referred to

several paragraph of the case-diary including

paragraph nos. 58, 59, 60, 36 and 37 of the

case- diary to show the involvement of the

petitioners in this offence. She has further

submitted that rice mill was closed and to meet

the household expenses the godown of the mill

was given to the accused Md. Raza prior to a

few months from the date of occurrence on the

basis of a Kirayanama and since that date it

was in possession of accused Md. Raza and his

companions co-accused Inamul @ Nihal for the

trade of coconut oil and the godown was under

lock of the petitioners.

After hearing learned counsel for

both the parties and on perusal of the impugned

order, it appears that learned Additional

Sessions Judge has considered the material
4

available in the case-diary and has found

sufficient material on record for framing

charge against the petitioners.

Considering the facts and

circumstances stated above, I do not find any

ground to interfere with the impugned order.

This petition is dismissed.

Kanchan                         (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)