(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Application No. 3303 of 2011
Rajendra s/o. Sitaram Bhoknal,
Age : 43 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. : Nimaj, Taluka : Sangamner, .. Applicant
District : Ahmednagar. (Original accused no.1)
versus
The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent.
.......................
Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the applicant.
Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for the respondent.
........................
CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATE : 8TH AUGUST 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:37:25 :::
(2)
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing.
3. The applicant i.e. original accused no.1 has preferred
the present application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying that the order dated 25-7-2011,
passed by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge,
Sangamner, below Exhibit 19 in Sessions Case No. 2/2007,
rejecting the application for discharge of the applicant (original
accused), be quashed and set aside.
4. It is the contention of the applicant (original accused)
that the Taluka Police Station, Sangamner, registered a complaint
bearing Crime No. III-26/2006 against the applicant and two
other accused, under Sections 8, 20(a) and (b), 22 and 27 of the
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short,
hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), on the ground that the
accused planted cannabises (Ganja Tree) in their field bearing
Survey No. 36/4 situated at village Nimaj (Taluka : Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar), and on that basis, panchanama came to
be prepared on the same day i.e. 30-8-2006.
5. The applicant contends that after receipt of
investigation papers from the Investigating Officer, the applicant
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:37:25 :::
(3)
filed application at Exhibit 19 for discharge under Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, below Exhibit 19 on 23rd
March 2009, contending that the land Survey No. 36/4 does not
belong to the applicant and the same is not owned by him, but it
is owned by accused nos.2 and 3, and also contending that
partition has taken between said accused nos.2 and 3, and the
applicant, long back, and further contending that there is separate
ration card of the applicant. It was also stated in the said
application, that the applicant was not even co-owner of the said
land Survey No. 36/4. However, the said application for
discharge preferred by the applicant was rejected by the learned
Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner, by passing order
thereon on 25-7-2011 for the reasons stated therein. Hence,
being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, applicant has
preferred the present application for the prayers as set out herein
above.
6. I have perused the contents of the application for
discharge preferred by the applicant i.e. original accused no.1,
Exhibit 19 before the learned trial court on 23rd March 2009, and
also perused contents of the impugned order dated 25-7-2011,
and heard learned Counsel for the parties, and admittedly,
offence under Sections 8, 20(a) and (b), 22 and 27 of the NDPS
Act was registered against the applicant i.e. original accused no.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:37:25 :::
(4)
1, and accused nos.2 and 3 on 30th August 2006, and 7/12 extract
produced by the applicant in the name of accused nos.2 and 3
pertaining to land Survey No. 36/4 dated 2nd September 2006
i.e. later to the registration of the offence, and therefore, there is
substance in the observation made by the learned trial court in the
impugned order dated 25-7-2011, that according to the
prosecution, during investigation it is made out that the accused
no.1 i.e. applicant herein is concerned with the above said field
Survey No. 36/4 and the prosecution has right to adduce
evidence against the accused and the said aspect can be dealt
with at the time of trial after giving due opportunity to the parties
to adduce evidence in that respect, and hence, learned trial court
has rightly rejected the application for discharge and no
interference therein is called for in the present application.
7. Besides, learned trial court has rightly observed in the
impugned order dated 25-7-2011, that while considering the
application for discharge, the defences raised by accused no.1
need not be looked into and only after the trial, a view could be
formed whether accused is involved in the offence or not, and
consequently, rightly rejected the said application for discharge
and no interference therein is warranted in the present
application.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:37:25 :::
(5)
8. In the circumstances, present application bears no
merit and applicant has failed to make out prima facie case to
invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and
therefore, present application deserves to be rejected.
9. In the result, present Criminal Application sans merits
and same stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
ig ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE )
JUDGE
.........................
bgp/ka3303
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:25 :::
