Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rahul Jangid S/O Shri Vinod Kumar Jangid vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 March, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
[2025:RJ-JP:12288]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 116/2025
Rahul Jangid S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Jangid, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 75A, Saraswati Path, Karni Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
(Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor Narcotics
Control Bureau (NCB)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonal Gupta, Adv. with
Mr. Vichitr Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP
with Mr. Vaibhav Jankhra, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Judgment
DATE OF RESERVED :: 07/03/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : : 24/03/2025
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated
25.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan First
(hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Sessions Case
No.60/2024, by which learned trial Court has ordered to frame
charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
Sections 8/20, 8/22C and 8/27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
present case against the petitioner has been made merely on the
basis of suspicion. The order impugned dated 25.10.2024 of
learned trial Court is patently illegal, erroneous and deserves to be
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (2 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
quashed and set aside. A false case has been made out against
the petitioner only with a motive to arrest him. Learned counsel
also submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are highly
interested and narrated the story in highly flimsy manner. Learned
counsel contended that the contraband in question has not been
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner,
therefore, no case under the provisions of NDPS Act is made out.
It has also been contended that the mandatory provision of
Section 50A of NDPS Act has been violated because the order for
authorization of the controlled delivery operation has been issued
by Deputy Director General, Narcotics Control Bureau (for short
'NCB'), whereas, as per the mandatory provision of Section 50A of
NDPS Act only Director General, NCB can pass an order to
undertake the controlled delivery operation. It has also been
contended that as per the notification No.S.O.3900(E) issued in
the Gazette of India dated 30.10.2019, Officer of rank of Inspector
can file the charge-sheet against the accused, whereas, in this
case charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed by a Junior
Intelligence Officer, who was not authorized to file the charge-
sheet. Learned trial Court has ordered to frame the charges
against the petitioner in a very flimsy manner, without applying its
judicial mind, therefore, the impugned order of framing charges
under various sections of NDPS Act is liable to be quashed and the
petitioner is entitled to be discharged. Therefore, the petition be
allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of
The State of Karnataka Vs. Chandrasha in Criminal Appeal
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (3 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
No.2646 of 2024, decided on 26.11.2024, Ashok Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 (2) SCC 67,
Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa, reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 773, Madan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of H.P.,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 465, Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerala,
reported in (2000) 8 SCC 590, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev
Singh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 and the judgment passed
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition
No.6853/2023 (Mr. Junaid Hussain Haveri Vs. Union of
India) and connected matters decided on 12.09.2023 and the
judgment passed by the High Court of Rajashtan in case of Gopal
Gadari & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 SCC
Online Raj 3989.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the NCB has opposed the petition and
supported the order impugned. Learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that as per Section 50A of the NDPS Act, the Director
General of NCB or any other officer authorized by him on his
behalf may undertake the controlled delivery operation of any
consignment. He further contended that in this matter the Director
General of NCB was on official tour to Japan from 28.01.2024 to
05.02.2024, therefore, vide memorandum dated 25.01.2024, the
Director General of NCB authorized Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta,
Deputy Director General to look after the work of Director General
of NCB. He also contended that Deputy Director General
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta has made the authorization order in this
matter to undertake the controlled delivery operation, therefore,
there is nothing illegal in this matter. He further contended that
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (4 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
this case is being investigated by NCB and as per notification
No.S.O.3900(E) dated 30.10.2019, Junior Intelligence Officer of
NCB is also empowered to file the charge-sheet and in this matter
the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed by
Mr. Mahesh Chand Meena, Junior Intelligence Officer, NCB, Jaipur,
who is fully empowered to do so, therefore, in this regard also
there is nothing illegal. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also
submitted that the case against the petitioner is of controlled
delivery operation, as defined under Section 2(viib) of NDPS Act.
As per the facts of this case, the petitioner had placed an order of
contraband ‘LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide)’ and ‘Ganja’ from a
vendor of Chennai and the vendor sent the parcel of contraband to
the residential address of the petitioner. Learned Special Public
Prosecutor further submitted that the parcel has been seized as
per the procedure prescribed, therefore, the question of seizure of
contraband from the possession of petitioner does not arise in this
case. He further contended that learned trial Court has passed the
order of framing charges against the petitioner, after applying its
judicial mind. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended
that at the stage of framing of charges only prima facie case is to
be seen and meticulous evidence is not required. He further
contended that in this case a parcel containing contraband was to
be delivered at the address of the petitioner and it was the
petitioner, who ordered the purchase of the contraband and the
payment of the contraband has been made by the petitioner by
way of online payment mode and the order of contraband was also
made online and there is sufficient material to prove this chain of
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (5 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
circumstances. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard and perused the material made available on record
and also perused the judgments cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
6. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.01.2024, a secret
credible information was received by the NCB Officers that a
parcel with tracking number ET987749165IN (hereinafter referred
to as ‘parcel’) was suspected to contain narcotic substances and
was intended for delivery at Jaipur to the petitioner-Rahul Jangid,
which was sent from Salem, Chennai. A team was constituted for
the purpose of preventive action. On 31.01.2024, an order under
Section 50A of the NDPS Act was issued by the Deputy Director
General, NCB, New Delhi Headquarters, authorizing Mr. Kapil
Sharma to conduct a controlled delivery operation of the said
parcel. The Post Master of the Post Office at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
was informed about the said parcel and was requested for
confidential operation. On 02.02.2024, the Post Master informed
Mr. Kapil Sharma that the suspected parcel had reached at the
Vaishali Nagar Post Office. The parcel bearing the address of the
petitioner as ‘Rahul Jangid, 75A Saraswati Path, Karni Vihar,
Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302021′. Following the
procedure, the parcel was searched in the presence of the
independent witnesses. From the parcel ’10 LSD blot papers’
weighing 0.4 grams were recovered. A similar dummy parcel was
prepared and was sent for delivery to the petitioner’s address. The
Post Master after confirming the identity of the petitioner by his
‘Aadhar Card’ asked the petitioner for delivery of the parcel to
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (6 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
which the petitioner admitted that the parcel has been sent for
him and he received the parcel, after marking his signatures on
the postal receipt. Thereafter, during investigation, the voluntary
statement of the petitioner under Section 67(c) of the NDPS Act
was recorded in which the petitioner admitted that some more
parcels were also coming to his address and other parcel
containing 23.4 grams of ‘Ganja’ also arrived at the post office,
which was also seized by the narcotic team. The seized
contraband was sent for examination in Forensic Science
Laboratory, where the seized articles were confirmed to be ‘LSD’
and ‘Ganja’. After the investigation, the charge-sheet has been
filed. Learned trial Court has passed the impugned order of charge
after hearing both the parties and after discussing the matter in
detail and formal charges for the offences punishable under
Sections 8/20, 8/22C & 8/27 of NDPS Act have been framed
against the petitioner.
7. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner
mainly on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 50A of
the NDPS Act. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner
that the order dated 31.01.2024 authorization to undertake the
controlled delivery operation against the petitioner was issued by
the Deputy Director General, NCB, whereas, it should have been
issued by the Director General.
8. Section 50A of NDPS Act reads as under:-
“Power to under take controlled delivery.-
The Director General of Narcotics Control
Bureau constituted under sub-section(3) of
section 4 or any other officer authorized by him
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (7 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]in this behalf, may, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, undertake controlled
delivery of any consignment to –
(a) any destination in India;
(b) a foreign country, in consultation with
the competent authority of such foreign country
to which such consignment is destined, in such
manner as may be prescribed.”
9. A bare reading of Section 50A of NDPS Act makes it clear
that the controlled delivery operation can be undertaken by
Director General of NCB or any other officer authorized by him in
this behalf. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention herein that on
25.01.2024, Director General of NCB issued a memorandum to
authorize Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Deputy Director General, to
look after the work of Director General of NCB. Mr. Neeraj Kumar
Gupta issued the order dated 31.01.2024 to authorize Mr. Kapil
Sharma to undertake the controlled delivery operation against the
petitioner. As Deputy Director General was authorized by the
Director General of NCB, therefore, it cannot be said that there is
any violation of provision of Section 50A of NDPS Act.
10. It has also been made a ground to assail the impugned order
that the charge-sheet itself has not been filed by the competent
authority, therefore, no prosecution can be launched on the basis
of the said charge-sheet. In this behalf, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
the notification No.S.O.3900(E) dated 30.10.2019 and contended
that the charge-sheet has not been filed by the competent
authority, wherein, in the notification itself the Junior Intelligence
Officer of NCB has been empowered to file complaint relating to
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (8 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
offences under NDPS Act before the Special Court and the charge-
sheet in this case has been filed by one Mr. Mahesh Chand Meena,
who is Junior Intelligence Officer, NCB, therefore, this argument
on behalf of the petitioner is also not tenable.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that
learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind before passing
the impugned order and has not evaluated the evidence collected
during the investigation in the right perspective and has ordered
to frame charges against the petitioner in a routine manner. In
this regard, this Court is of the view that learned trial Court has
passed a detailed order after affording opportunity of hearing to
both the parties and has rightly held that at the stage of framing
charges only prima facie case is to be seen and recording of
detailed reason is not necessary. Learned trial Court has also
rightly held that charges against the accused-petitioner can be
framed even if there is a strong suspicion, which leads the Court
to believe that there is a ground for presuming that the accused
has committed the offence. At the time of framing of charges, the
trial Court is not supposed to consider or weigh the evidence with
a view to evaluate whether there is sufficient ground for conviction
of the accused.
12. Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam and Ors. reported in AIR 2020
SC 554 observed as under:
“16. …For framing the charges under Section 228
Cr.P.C., the judge is not required to record
detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the
stage of framing the charge, the court is not
required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima
facie case is to be seen. As held in Knati Bhadra
Shah and another v. State of West Bengal (2000)(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (9 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]1 SCC 722 : (AIR 2000 SC 522), while exercising
power under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the judge is not
required record his reasons for framing the
charges against the accused.”
13. Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Radhey Shyam & Ors. v Kunj Behari & Ors. reported in AIR
1990 SC 121 has observed with regards to exercising of power
under Section 482 CrPC vis-à-vis quashing of order of framing of
charge as under:
“8. …In so far as the High Court’s view that “in the
interest of justice, it is the duty of the Court under
S. 482, Cr. P. C. to go into the merits of the
evidence and appreciate correctly the documents
and the statements filed by the police”, we may
only refer to Mohd. Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu
and Kashmir. 1981 Supp SCC 80: (AIR 1981 SC
1548), where it has been pointed out that at the
stage of framing of charges, meticulous
consideration of evidence and materials by Court is
not required.”
14. Further, Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd
(supra), with regard to power of the High Court to quash the order
of framing of charges, has held as under:
“35. Thus, we declare the law to be that order
framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order
nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is
not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be
it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227
of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction
is to be exercised consistent with the legislative
policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial
without the same being in any manner hampered.
Thus considered, the challenge to an order of
charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare
case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction
and not to reappreciate the matter.”
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12288] (10 of 10) [CRLR-116/2025]
15. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, this Court finds
that the learned trial Court has not made any illegality or
irregularity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, this petition
being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. All the pending
application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J
Mohita/-
(Downloaded on 31/03/2025 at 09:50:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)