IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12255 of 2009 MANTU KUMAR SINGH @ MANTU SINGH, S/O SHRI RAM JATAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BAJITPUR DIGHA, P.S. DIGHAGHAT, DISTRICT-PATNA. --PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --OPP.PARTY For the Petitioner : M/s Ram Pravesh Sharma & Umesh Kr. Mishra For the State : Mr. Amarendra Prasad, APP 2 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application seeking quashing of order dated 02nd May, 2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna, in Special Case no.10 of 2006 arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case no. 10 of 2006 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29, 32B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, drew my attention towards order of this Court in the matter of bail passed in Cr.Misc. no. 56392 of 2007 dated 24th June, 2008 from which it appears that the materials recovered and seized during the raid in connection 2 with instant case were sent for chemical examination before Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, but as per report it does not contain trace of heroin, as alleged. On the basis of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner taking further support from decision in famous case reported in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992(SC) 604, besides Pepsi Food Ltd. V. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 (SC) 128, submits that order of cognizance be quashed and the petitioner be not compelled to go before the trial court, i.e., the court of Additional Sessions Judge, IX, at Patna, seeking his discharge. This court is in agreement with the decisions of the Apex Court but at the same time facts of this case appears slightly different. Impugned order taking cognizance was passed in the year 2006 and subsequently, as it appears from order of this court in the matter of bail that report of Forensic Science Laboratory was received in the year 2008. On the basis thereof it was incumbent upon the petitioner to move the court below seeking his discharge. Had all such material been brought into notice of the court concerned where so many persons are involved in the instant case, as alleged, an 3 appropriate order could have been passed but instead of doing so he has invoked jurisdiction of this Court. Considering the facts stated above, petitioner is directed to appear before the court below and participate in the year on the point of charge. The Court below is further directed to consider the entire materials including report of Forensic Science Laboratory, afore-mentioned, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With this observation and direction, this application stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad