- (1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.6.2014 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby application for discharge preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and charges have been framed against him in FIR No. 42 dated 22.3.2013, under Sections 22, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Sirhind.
(2.) As per prosecution version, a Skoda vehicle was intercepted on 22.03.2013 and upon search of such vehicle, 10 kgs. of intoxicating powder was recovered and two occupants of the Car, namely, Rajinder Singh and Kulvir Singh were arrested. This led to the registration of the FIR in question. During the course of investigation and on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the accused, Jagdish Singh Bhola and Harpreet Singh Banwal were also named in the case. On 23.3.2013 accused were stated to have admitted that the Skoda vehicle belonged to Manpreet Singh @ Mani Gill and as such Manpreet Singh was arrested on 23.3.2013. On the basis of further interrogation, the accused Anoop Singh Kahlon @ Rubi and Kulwinder Singh @ Rocky were also named in the FIR and were arrested on 25.3.2013. Still further on 27.3.2013 on the basis of interrogation of Anoop Singh accused, Harpreet Singh and Kulwant Singh were also named in the FIR. Furthermore as per prosecution version, upon the disclosure statement made by accused, further recoveries of intoxicating powder were also effected till 16.4.2013. It so transpires that investigation in the matter was transferred to CIA Patiala on 2.5.2013.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would, vehemently, contend that FIR No. 42 dated 22.3.2013 was registered on the arrest of two alleged co-accused, namely, Rajinder Singh and Kulvir Singh and during investigation, certain other persons were also arrested and alleged recoveries were effected. It has been argued that till the transfer of investigation on 2.5.2013, the present petitioner had not been named by any of the co-accused and as such no role had been attributed to him. It is further contended that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of 21.5.2013 from his residence situated at Jalandhar. It is argued that the alleged recovery from the petitioner from his house at Jalandhar could not be clubbed with FIR No. 42 dated 22.3.2013, registered at Police Station Sirhind.;