Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.02 18:51:39 +0530 2025:CGHC:29291-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2025 of 2025 Khushi Chand Gupta S/o Late Mohan Lal Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Shiv Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Saket Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with following prayer: 2 “A) That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly quash and set aside the entire proceedings of the criminal special session case (NDPS) no. 95/2024 pending before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), District Bilaspur, in the interest of justice. B.) That, the Hon'ble court may kindly set aside & quash he orders dated 24.09.2024 & 16.10.2024, passed by court below, in the interest of justice. C) That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly and set aside the final report no. 242024 under Section 193 of the BNSS dated 16.10.2024 submitted by Police Station- Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, in Crime No.221/2024 also F.I.R. dated 13.08.2024 registered under Section 173 of the BNSS as Crime No.221/2024 in Tarbahar Police Station Bilaspur may kinldy be set aside in the interest of justice. 3. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the police station Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur Conducted raid after receiving secret information from the informant and on the basis of the said information the Minakshi Medical Store, Near Gayatri Mandir Chowk, Vidyanagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) is raided and inspected on 12/08/2024. The 38 packs of SPASMAXX with tramadol capsules (each pack containing 8 capsule), total 304 capsules of 152 grams, 24 packs of Ultraking tablets containing tramadol (each pack contains 15 tablets), total 360 tablets of 120 grams, 29 packs of Pyeevan Spas Plus Capsules containing tramadol (each pack contains 8 3 capsules), 232 capsules of 174 grams was seized from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the police has registered the offence as F.I.R. No. 221/2024, under section 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused has been arrested on 13/08/2024. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed on 16/10/2024, wherein the charge has been framed under section 22 (C) of NDPS Act against the applicant. Thereafter, the Special Session Case (NDPS) / 95/2024 is registered before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Bilaspur and the trail Court has proceeded against the petitioner and the trial is at the stage of prosecution witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. Every officer empowered under section 53 and every officer in-charge of a police station shall, on receipt of information, proceed to trace and identify the illegally acquired properties (section 68E). The officer may issue an order seizing the properties and if it is not possible to seize, freezing the properties, he shall send a copy of the order within 48 hours to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has to confirm the order within 30 days, else, it will not be valid. The Competent Authority issues a notice to the affected person and after considering the reply and other records of the case, passes an order forfeiting the properties or otherwise. If the person is only 4 arrested, the issue of notice and subsequent forfeiture will proceed only after his conviction or after an order of preventive detention is issued. The Burden of Proving that the properties are not illegally acquired is on the affected person. Appeals against the orders of forfeiture lie with the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties. Seized or forfeited properties are managed and disposed by the Administrators as per Illegally Acquired Property (Receipt, Management and Disposal) Rules. So far the Government of India appointed officers as Competent Authority- cum-Administrator, the above mentioned procedure has not been followed by the authorities. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present criminal case without any coherent evidence on records which establishes his involvement in such illegal possession. 5. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet and submits that in the present matter, since the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed and trial has started and 09 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this petition has virtually become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. Learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the case, has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) of the NDPS Act, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. Learned State Counsel further argued that a bare perusal of 5 charge-sheet goes to show that from the possession of the petitioner, 38 packs of SPASMAXX with tramadol capsules (each pack containing 8 capsule), total 304 capsules of 152 grams, 24 packs of Ultraking tablets containing tramadol (each pack contains 15 tablets), total 360 tablets of 120 grams, 29 packs of Pyeevan Spas Plus Capsules containing tramadol (each pack contains 8 capsules), 232 capsules of 174 grams was seized. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with petition. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed, charges have already been framed against the petitioner, trial has already been started and 09 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, as such, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the present matter as the FIR as well as the impugned charge-sheet, discloses the fact that a huge amount of contraband article has been seized from the possession of the present petitioner, hence, it is obligatory that the trial be brought to a logical end. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition lacks merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet