1 - Chevil Kumar Manghi S/o Basant Kumar Manghi Aged About 23 Years R/o v. Peti
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 532 of 2025 1 - Chevil Kumar Manghi S/o Basant Kumar Manghi Aged About 23 Years R/o A1 P.T.S., Ward No.-17, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Sannikant Soni S/o Manoj Soni Aged About 22 Years Housing Board Colony, Ward No.-39, Kauren Bhada, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Tikesh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Komalram Bhardwaj Aged About 26 Years (Father Surname Wrongly Mentioned As Bharatdhraw In Annex. P/1), R/o Village - Sambalpur, P.S. - Doundilohara, District - Balod (C.G.) versus ... Petitioners State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Petitioners For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.30 18:34:08 +0530 2 30/04/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned orders dated 09.04.2025 and 15.04.2025, passed in Special Sessions Case No. 22 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Balod. 2. By the order dated 09.04.2025, the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners for calling of the defence witnesses, who are the Nodal Officer of Jio Telecom Limited, Nodal Officer of BSNL and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Balod on the ground that their names have not been shown in the witness list submitted along with the charge sheet and the Hon’ble High Court has fixed the outer limit to decide the case up to 06.05.2025 and it is also observed in the order dated 09.04.2025 that if the petitioner/accused Chevil Manjhi wanted to examine his defence witness, he can produce them on the next date i.e. on 15.04.2025. 3. On 15.04.2025, the petitioner/accused Chevil Manjhi has filed an application for grant of time to produce his defence witness and to raise argument, but the same has also been rejected by saying that the outer limit to decide the case is 06.05.2025 and the application is filed only to delaying the proceeding. Both these orders are under challenge in the present petition. 3 4. The facts of the case are that the present petitioners are the accused persons in the Special Sessions Case No. 22/2024 and facing trial for the offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for having possession of 1.300 kgs Ganja on the dicky of motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 E 0173 on 22.01.2024. In the case, the accused Sannikant Soni was granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.03.2024, passed in MCRC No. 2050 of 2024 and while granting bail, it has been observed that the learned trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of 06 months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order dated 27.03.2024 in accordance with law. The co-accused Tikesh Kumar Bhardwaj was also granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024, passed in MCRC No. 2213 of 2024. While granting bail to the accused Tikesh Kumar Bhardwaj, it has again been observed that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial within the period as has been ordered vide order dated 27.03.2024, passed in MCRC No. 2050 of 2024, if there is no legal impediment. 5. The accused Chevil Kumar Manjhi was also directed to be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2024, passed in MCRC No. 2636 of 2024 and it has again been observed in his bail order that the learned trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 18.04.2024 in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 4 6. Subsequently, when the trial of the case could not be concluded within the stipulated time framed, a request letter was sent by the learned trial Court, which was registered as CRMP No. 3539 of 2024, which was came up for hearing on 06.01.2025 and the coordinate Bench of this Court pleased to extend the time to conclude the trial for further 04 months from 06.01.2025. 7. During the pendency of the trial of the case, the witnesses have been examined and the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of CRPC have been recorded and case was fixed for recording the defence witnesses on 09.04.2025. On the said date, an application has been filed by the accused Chevil Manjhi for issuance of summons to the defence witnesses i.e. Nodal Officer of Jio Telecom Limited, Balod, Nodal Officer of BSNL, Balod and the Sub- Divisional Officer (Police), Balod. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court by saying that the name of the defence witnesses is not mentioned in the charge sheet No. 65 of 2024 and no any mobile phone has been seized in the case. Further, the outer limit up to 06.05.2025 has been fixed by the order of this Court and further fixed the case for 15.04.2025 and observed that if the appellant wants to produce his defence witnesses, he can produce on his own. On 15.04.2025, another application has been filed by the accused Chevil Manjhi for grant of time to produce defence witnesses and to argue the matter. In that application, he also prayed that the defence witnesses are very relevant for just decision of the case and therefore, they may be summoned as the defence witnesses. The application filed by the Chevil Manjhi was rejected on 5 15.04.2025 itself by observing that the outer limit is fixed up to 06.05.2025 and it appears that he has filed the application only to delay the proceedings, which are under challenge in the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defence witnesses which are sought to be produced by the petitioners/accused persons are very relevant to prove the location of the investigating officer as well as the accused persons. They being the defence witnesses, their names certainly not be there in the charge sheet. Only by saying that the outer limit is fixed up to 06.05.2025, they cannot be deprived from their right to produce defence witnesses. The order impugned would prejudice their defence, which definitely not the object of fair trial. The accused persons are entitled to defend his case on all defences available to him and a proper opportunity should have been provided to him to produce defence witnesses. Rejection of their application are bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and they may be permitted to produce the defence witnesses and summons may be issued to them. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that sufficient opportunity has been provided to the accused persons to produce their defence witnesses, but they failed to do so. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the 6 learned trial Court has rejected the application, in which there is no infirmity or illegality and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. From perusal of the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court with respect to the bail granted to the petitioners, initially there was a direction vide order dated 27.03.2024 to conclude the trial within the period of 06 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order dated 27.03.2024 and subsequently, when a request letter was made by the learned trial Court for extension of time, the coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to extend 04 months time to conclude the trial of the case vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed in CRMP No. 3539 of 2024, which bound the learned trial Court to conclude the trial up to 06.05.2025. 12. Although, the time limit has been fixed to conclude the trial, yet the concept of fair trial and principles of natural justice cannot be kept aside. The accused persons have right to produce their defence witnesses in support of their defence, for which they should have been provided the proper opportunity to produce the same. When they filed an application before the learned trial Court for issuance of summons to their defence witnesses, the learned trial Court is required to decide the same in an objective manner keeping the interest of the accused, who is facing trial under the NDPS Act. The trial of the case includes the production of prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, and by forfeiting the right to lead the 7 defence witness would violate the principles of natural justice and the same cannot be taken away by saying that an outer limit has been fixed to decide the case. One of the ground for rejection of the application that the names of the defence witnesses are not there in the list of witnesses annexed along with the charge sheet, which obviously cannot be there as they are the defence witnesses and not the prosecution witnesses. The valuable rights of the accused persons are hampered, if they would not be permitted to lead their defence witnesses, which are the integral part of the fair and effective justice delivery system and the principles of natural justice. Instead of forfeiting the rights to lead defence witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the petitioners/accused persons to produce their defence witnesses. 13. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court warrants interference by this Court and thus, both the impugned orders dated 09.04.2025 and 15.04.2025 are set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to fix a date for defence witnesses and to issue summons to them [i.e. Nodal Officer of Jio Telecom Limited, Nodal Officer of BSNL and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Balod] through electronic communication system as provided under Section 71 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to record their evidence as defence witness, keeping in view the time limit fixed by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2025, passed in CRMP No. 3539 of 2024. 8 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present criminal revision is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge