Full Text
Translation output
t:
? .4-' T o/o .,f .
J, $-R-139 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRI-.M.C .333012009 & Crl.
M.A. No. I 129512009
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Ivfr.Sushil Kaushik, Advocates
? .4-' T o/o .,f .
J, $-R-139 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRI-.M.C .333012009 & Crl.
M.A. No. I 129512009
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Ivfr.Sushil Kaushik, Advocates
VERSUS
BHANWAR LAL .... Respondent
Through: None.
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ST]NIL GATIR
08.03.2013 This petition is directed against order of 23'd March, 2005 vide which charge was framed against respondent-accused.
IvIr. Satish Aggarwal, Special Public Prosecutor for petitioner states that the charge framed in this case is only under
Sections 2IC of Naicotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 whereas ingredients of Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 had existed and respondent- accused ought to have been called to face the trial under Section 29 of the aforesaid Act. It is informed that now upon re-testing the recovered quantity qua respondent-accused is found to be of a small quantity and that the case before the trial court is at the stage of final argument.
In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to now
Crl. M.C. No.3330/2009 Page 1 2013:DHC:6842 &\ consider the validity of the charge framed as the case is at the stage of final arguments and respondent-accused is said to be in custody now for the last about 9 years. Such a view is taken because the charge in this case was framed in March, 2005 and only in
September,2}}g,petitioner had filed application for amendment of the charge and by then, substantial part of prosecution evidence had been recorded. It is on account of the delay on the part of petitioner that this court is not inclined to entertain this petition to add the charge of criminal conspiracy.
While refusing to interfere with the impugned order, this petition is disposed of with a clarification that this order is passed in the peculiar facts of this case and would not be treated as precedent.
With aforesaid observations, this petition as well as pending application are disposed of. Needless to say, with vacation of the interim order, now the trial would be concluded with promptitude.
MARCr{ 08,2013 pkb d J Judge Crl. M.C. No.3330/2009 Page2
2013:DHC:6842
08.03.2013 This petition is directed against order of 23'd March, 2005 vide which charge was framed against respondent-accused.
IvIr. Satish Aggarwal, Special Public Prosecutor for petitioner states that the charge framed in this case is only under
Sections 2IC of Naicotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 whereas ingredients of Section 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 had existed and respondent- accused ought to have been called to face the trial under Section 29 of the aforesaid Act. It is informed that now upon re-testing the recovered quantity qua respondent-accused is found to be of a small quantity and that the case before the trial court is at the stage of final argument.
In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to now
Crl. M.C. No.3330/2009 Page 1 2013:DHC:6842 &\ consider the validity of the charge framed as the case is at the stage of final arguments and respondent-accused is said to be in custody now for the last about 9 years. Such a view is taken because the charge in this case was framed in March, 2005 and only in
September,2}}g,petitioner had filed application for amendment of the charge and by then, substantial part of prosecution evidence had been recorded. It is on account of the delay on the part of petitioner that this court is not inclined to entertain this petition to add the charge of criminal conspiracy.
While refusing to interfere with the impugned order, this petition is disposed of with a clarification that this order is passed in the peculiar facts of this case and would not be treated as precedent.
With aforesaid observations, this petition as well as pending application are disposed of. Needless to say, with vacation of the interim order, now the trial would be concluded with promptitude.
MARCr{ 08,2013 pkb d J Judge Crl. M.C. No.3330/2009 Page2
2013:DHC:6842
JUDGMENT