CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27270 OF 2000 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. SUBHASH SINGH YADAV, SON OF DAYARAM YADAV 2. SUMER SINGH YADAV @ SUMER SINGH, SON OF BHAWANI SINGH YADAV, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARHI (TEHSIL), P.S. KAUSALI CHOWK, NAHAD, DISTRICT RAWARI, HARYANA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ... OPPOSITE PARTY. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mukesh, Adv. Santosh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. 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 2 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 3 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. 4 4. Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has forcefully argued that in view of conclusive finding of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which says that seized substances were not Charas, nothing remained in the present case to proceed against the petitioners. It was submitted that the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, in a mechanical manner, even after noticing the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, has rejected the present petition. Shri Sandeep Kumar has referred to Annexure-2 to the petition, which is a photo copy of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory No.95 of 2000 dated 15.5.2000. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of rejection of discharge petition and entire proceeding in Excise Case No.52 of 1999. 5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, though opposed the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the order of rejection of discharge petition, did not dispute the Forensic Science laboratory report on the seized articles. 5 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Even after perusing Annexure-2 to the petition i.e. report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which categorically shows that the seized substance were not Charas, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners. This court is of the view that once a finding of the expert had already been brought on record indicating that seized substance/articles were not Charas, as was alleged in the F.I.R. or entire prosecution case, nothing remains to prosecute the petitioners. After the receipt of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the other evidence becomes meaningless. 7. Accordingly, the court is of the view that this is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and, as such, the impugned order i.e. order dated 18.8.2000 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge in Excise Case No.52 of 1999 as well as entire criminal prosecution in the present case so far as 6 petitioners are concerned is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 2.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.