No doubt while framing the charge, no reasons are required to be given but nonetheless, once the learned trial court mentions in its order that the arguments were heard then it is obligatory on the part of the learned trial court to consider the arguments and decide the contention raised by the accused as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K through the learned bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Mohammad Sadiq Vs Union Territory of J&K. [Crl R No. 26/2020]
Facts on the record are that during routine patrol checking, the Police officials saw a Motorcycle parked on the roadside and two unknown persons were sitting on it. On seeing the police party, they started the Motorcycle in order to run away but they were apprehended by the Police personnel. The pillion rider was having a bag, red, green, and yellow in color, on which ‘Mohsin’ was written in English. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Mohd Sadiq, petitioner herein and the person, who was driving the Motorcycle disclosed his name as Mohd Rafiq. During the search, pink-colored polythene was found in the bag, which was having rupees five lacs Indian currency along with approximately 4 grams of Heroin substance. Thereafter, FIR bearing No. 107/2020 for a commission of offenses under sections 8, 21, 22, 25, 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered with Police Station, Manjakote and after the conclusion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the trial court.
Mr. Monish Chopra learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a bare perusal of the challan, as well as the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in support of the challan, would reveal that there is absolutely no evidence on record with regard to the commission of offenses under sections 25 and 27- A of the Act. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia learned GA appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that the learned trial court after hearing the arguments of the parties have framed the charges and there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned trial court.
After hearing both the parties and a perusal of the impugned order, the court observed that the learned trial court has heard the arguments on charge and thereafter has simply framed the charges without reflecting as to what were the arguments that were advanced by the accused. In conclusion, while relying the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. the State of Gujarat, the High Court stated that “For a person to be charged for commission of a particular offense, the material relied upon by the prosecution must be of such nature that can be translated into evidence. As the learned trial court has not returned any finding with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, so this Court does not deem it proper to consider the same in the revision and leave the same to be considered by the trial court.
Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj