- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 29-9-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court (Court No. 9), Gautam Budh Nagar in Special Session Case No. 9 of 2005, State v. Manoj, under Sections 18/20 N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. Jewar District Gautam Budh Nagar.
(2.) SINCE the point involved in this application is legal one, I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A. G. A, for the State and I am disposing of this application on merits at the admission stage. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the applicant was Challaned in case Crime No. 25/05 under Sections 18/20 N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. Jewar District Gautam Budh Nagar, and the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against him under Section 18/20 N. D. P. S. Act and then Special Session Case No. 9/05, State v. Manoj, was registered against him in the Court. The applicant's allegation is that he was falsely implicated in the case and so the I. G of C. R. P. F. (Chandigarh) had written letter to I. G. (Police) Meerut Zone Meerut for reinvestigation and the matter was reinvestigated by the Additional S. P. (R. A.) Sri S. P. Singh and he found that the allegations against the applicant were false. After this inquiry by the Additional S. P. (R. A.) the applicant moved an application before the Court for summoning the report of Additional S. P. (R. A.) but that application was rejected by the Court vide order dated 11-7-2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had also mentioned in his order that in view of the ruling of this Court in Ram Bahadur Shahi v. State of U. P. , 1988 Alld Dand Nirnay 389, at the stage of charge the evidence relied upon by the accused could not be considered and the accused at the stage of trial should make prayer for summon ing those documents, if any in his favour.
(3.) THEREAFTER the charge under Sections 18/20 N. D. P. S. Act was framed against the accused person on 29-9-2007. On 29-9-2007 his application for summoning the report of Additional S. P. (R. A.) was again rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted before this Court that since the case is now fixed for recording of evidence, his prayer for summoning that report should have been considered by the trial Court and should not have been rejected.;