SUBHASH SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.8.2000 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Excise Cae No.52 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 18.12.1999, the police patrolling party, on secret information, stopped a passenger bus and searched the passengers. On search from these petitioners, Charas weighing 5 1/2 Kgms. were recovered from possession of both the petitioners and thereafter, the petitioners were arrested and a case vide Raxaul P.S. Case No.185 of 1999 was registered under Sections 15, 16, 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) and Section 47A of the Excise Act. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and charge sheet was submitted. At the stage of charge, a petition for discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioners solely on the ground that since the report of expert i.e. Forensic Science Laboratory categorically stated that seized articles were not Charas, the petitioners were not required to be prosecuted further in the case. In course of hearing, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vth, the plea of the petitioners in respect of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was forcefully taken. It was refuted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and it was submitted that during the investigation, other materials were also collected. From the order, it appears that learned Additional Public Prosecutor had not disputed the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not genuine. Meaning thereby that the prosecution had accepted regarding the genuineness of the report, which categorically says that the seized articles/substance were not Charas. Even, thereafter, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 18.5.2000, rejected the discharge petition and directed for framing of the charges.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition and this case was admitted on 20.2.2002 for hearing. While admitting, this Court directed that pending final hearing of this application, further proceeding in Excise Case No.52 of 1999 pending in the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing.