IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.44921 of 2008 KAILASH BHARTI, Son of late Basant Sah, resident of village- Dumari, P.S. Tikapatti, District- Purnea. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 10.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by Special Judge, Purnea in Special Case No. 08 of 2006, arising out of Tikapatti (Rupauli) P.S. case no. 28 of 2006, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the informant is the local Chaukidar of village Bairiya, P.S. Tikapatti. He alleged that some accused persons have grownup poppy plant on their fields. On such information, he went to the concerned field and found some named accused persons in the said poppy plant field. Furthermore, the grievance of the petitioner is that informant on hearsay statement of some of the persons also alleged that poppy plant is being grownup by other accused persons as well including this petitioner. Learned counsel submits that so far as this petitioner is concerned, the informant himself did not verify whether the land in question belong to the petitioner or whether in fact he had cultivated the poppy plant. Learned counsel submits that he filed an application to the Superintendent of Police, Purnea, regarding his false implication. Pursuant to the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police, the S.D.P.O. conducted an enquiry and found that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The report of the S.D.P.O. was also endorsed by - 2 - the Superintendent of Police, who forwarded the same to the court of Special Judge, Purnea. The grievance of the petitioner is that without looking into the report of the Superintendent of Police, Purnea, the learned Special Judge, Purnea took cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, though the investigation against him is still pending. Heard the counsel for the parties. It appears that the learned Special Judge, Purnea has taken cognizance against the petitioner without looking into the aforesaid police report. This Court is of the view that investigation is still pending against the petitioner and some others as well. In view of the aforesaid facts, I think that it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to take all these points at the time of framing of charge. If the petitioner files an application at the aforesaid stage, the learned Special Judge, Purnea would consider the aforesaid points raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)