Full Judgment Text
$~19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Decided on:- 12 July, 2019
+ Crl.M.C.480/2019 & Crl.M.A. 2062/2019
VINDHYACHAL MISHRA @ DUBE JI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kr. Shukla, Mr.
Nihal Ahmad, Mr. Kunal
Yadav, Ms. Neena, Ms. Zia
Ahmed & Ms. Reetu Sharma,
Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing proceedings in a criminal case arising
out of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted upon conclusion of investigation into first
information report (FIR) no. 176/2018 of police station Crime Branch
of Delhi Police involving offences allegedly committed under Section
20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (NDPS Act). Concededly, after cognizance was taken by the
special Court, the process was issued against him in terms of Section
204 Cr.P.C. The case, it appears, is at the stage of consideration of
charge.
Crl. M.C. No.480/2019 Page 1 of 4
2. By the present petition filed before this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C, prayer is made for the proceedings in the said case to be
quashed on various grounds primarily the claim being that the
petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated, the procedure adopted by
the investigating agency being designed to falsely frame him, several
illegalities having been committed, there being breaches of the
mandatory provisions of the law contained in NDPS Act.
3. At the hearing, questions arose as to why the petitioner should
come up to this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. instead of making the
submissions before the trial court which is now at the stage of
considering the material for deciding as to whether charge is made out
or not.
4. The counsel responded by saying that co-accused Arvind
Kumar is absconding and proceedings to declare him proclaimed
offender have resulted in the progress being held up, the design of the
respondent being to keep him in custody to the extent possible.
5. The learned additional public prosecutor, however, placed
before the Court, copy of the proceedings recorded by the Special
Judge on 23.05.2019, the correctness whereof was not questioned.
The said proceedings reveal that the petitioner had raised grievance
regarding deficiency in supply of legible documents under Section 207
Cr.P.C. by making an application, the requisite documents having
been supplied to him on the same date thereby satisfying the
mandatory requirement of the said provision of law, the case thereafter
having been adjourned for arguments on charge to 08.07.2019 because
the main counsel was not available. The learned additional public
Crl. M.C. No.480/2019 Page 2 of 4
prosecutor also pointed out that documents had been initially supplied
to the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. as far back as on
12.11.2018.
6. From the above, this Court finds that there has been no
intentional delay on the part of the prosecution or investigating
agency. There is no explanation why the deficiency, if any, in legible
copies (which were supplied on 12.11.2018) could not have been
pointed out prior to the moving of an application on 23.05.2019. It is
also noted that co-accused Arvind Kumar, as per the above
proceedings was declared proclaimed offender on 29.04.2019
whereafter there is no inhibition in the question of charge being
considered by the concerned court. The deferment of the said
consideration, it appears, had to be ordered by the Special Judge
because the counsel for the petitioner himself was not available.
7. The investigation has already been completed. The stage is now
set before the Special Judge for question of charge to be considered.
There is no reason why the contentions urged by the petitioner before
this Court by the petition at hand cannot be raised before the special
court under NDPS Act at the stage of consideration of charge. There
is no reason why there should be a departure from the normal
procedure prescribed in law.
8. The petitioner will have the liberty to raise the contentions set
out in the petition before the concerned court at the hearing on the
question of charge and if need be thereafter at the trial.
Crl. M.C. No.480/2019 Page 3 of 4
9. It being inappropriate for this Court to intervene at this stage of
the judicial process under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petition and the
pending application are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 12, 2019
nk
Crl. M.C. No.480/2019 Page 4 of 4