Crl.Rev. No.388 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 388 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 10, 2010 Parkash Chand Sharma ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner after presentation of the supplementary challan. The facts of the case , as noticed by the trial Court in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:- “ 2. Facts of the case may firstly be noted in brief. On 21.1.2006, information was received by ASI Nand Ram Crl.Rev. No.388 of 2010 2 from control room through Head Constable Sunil that Charas had been concealed towards engine side in scooter no. HR-51- H-4066, which was lying parked in the parking area of court premises. Vigilance was kept on the said scooter. At about 2.00 p.m. a person came there and started the scooter. On query, he disclosed his name as Narender. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him. In response thereto, he disclosed that he had come to attend hearing in the criminal complaints filed by him pertaining the cheques of Rs.60 lac against M/s ITAC Ltd, which are pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Faridabad and that he was in the court for last about 4 hours during which his scooter was standing in the parking. He, however, consented for search in presence of a Gazetted Officer. The search of scooter resulted in recovery of 170 grams of Charas in the presence of DSP. Samples were drawn. Samples and the residue were sealed in separate parcels. FIR was registered. During investigation, police suspected foul play so as to falsely implicate Narender. Said Narender was found innocent and so not arrested. During investigation by the DSP, role of Head Constable Sunil and EHC Virender was found suspicious. However, on 10.11.2006, an untrace report was prepared by the then SHO. 3. Later on pursuant to the orders of senior authorities, matter was Crl.Rev. No.388 of 2010 3 handed over to CIA Palwal. Accused Suresh Bhardwaj was arrested on 17.4.2008, who on interrogation disclosed that on account of the criminal litigation initiated by Narender Kumar against him regarding some money transaction, he in conspiracy with his brother Rajender, nephew Achil and clerk Anil Garg, had consulted his friend P.C.Sharma and through him he had hired two boys on payment of Rs.30,000/- for placing Charas in the scooter of Narender, so as to implicate him in a criminal case. Section 120-B IPC was added. Regarding the disclosure statement of said accused Suresh Bhardwaj, a CD was also prepared. Accused Rajender Bhardwaj, Achil Bhardwaj and Amit Garg obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court. They were formally joined in the investigation. 4. Accused Rakesh Tyagi son of Dal Chand; and Ajit son of Satish were arrested and on interrogation, they made disclosure statements on 2.6.2008. In his disclosure statement, it was stated by accused Rakesh that he had met with accused Suresh Bhardwaj at the house of P.C.Sharma Director IB Delhi on the asking of Amit Tyagi son of Brahm Parkash. P.C.Sharma had told them the story of Bhardwaj and had asked him to implicate the person being referred by Suresh Bhardwaj. They had demanded Rs.50,000/- from Suresh but he had given Rs.30,000/- to him and Amit alias Sonu. He also disclosed that he and Amit alias Sonu purchased 170 grams of Charas from Crl.Rev. No.388 of 2010 4 Gurgaon and then with the help of their friend Ajit, reached Faridabad, where Suresh Bhardwaj, Rajender Bhardwaj and Anil Garg met them. They pointed out towards the scooter of Narender. They consulted Head Constable Virender, who advised them to inform control room after planting the Charas. Said accused Rakesh further disclosed that how in conspiracy with all the accused, the Charas was planted. A similar disclosure statement was made by accused Ajit. Video CDs were also prepared of the disclosure statements made by accused. Accused also led the police party to the place, where the Charas had been planted. 5. After concluding investigation, challan was filed by the police against seven of the accused namely Suresh Bhardwaj, Rajender Bhardwaj, Anil Garg, Achil Bhardwaj, Rakesh, Ajit and Virender as by that time, other accused Sonu alias Amit and P.C.Sharma had not been arrested. These seven challaned accused were charge-sheeted by Shri R.S.Bahmani, the then leaned Special Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 21.4.2009 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and Section 120-B IPC 6. In the meantime, supplementary challan against accused Parkash Chand was filed. The other accused Anil alias Sonu had been declared proclaimed offender as per this supplementary challan. Said supplementary challan has been clubbed with the main case.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Crl.Rev. No.388 of 2010 5 petitioner has no concern with the offence in question and has been falsely involved in this case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.. In the present case, the supplementary challan was presented against the petitioner. Initially, a charge was framed against the other co- accused-Suresh Bhardwaj and others vide order dated 21.4.2009. A raid was conducted on the basis of receipt on secret information. Recovery of 170 grams of charas was effected from the scooter of Narinder Kumar. During investigation, it transpired that on account of criminal litigation initiated by Narinder Kumar against Suresh Bhardwaj regarding some money transaction, Suresh Bhardwaj in connivance with the petitioner and other co-accused planted charas in the scooter of Narinder Kumar. Thus, at this stage, there was a prima facie, case against the petitioner to proceed against him. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly ordered the charge to be framed against the petitioner alongwith his co- accused. Whether the petitioner has actually committed the alleged offence would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to scuttle the criminal proceedings. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge February 10, 2010 arya