HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 796 / 2002
Shyam Bhola son of Seva Ram, by caste Punjabi, resident of
Sector 5, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.
The State of Rajasthan
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain Mr. K.S. Lodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI
Instant revision is directed against the judgment
dated 13/08/2002 passed by Sessions Judge (Special Judge, NDPS
Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 89/2000 by which trial Court
has framed charges against the petitioner for offence under
Sections 8/18 and 8/26 of the NDPS Act and Section 406 I.P.C.
Heard the arguments of both the sides, learned
counsel for the revisionist has vehemently contended that the
impugned order has not been passed correctly and the argument
advanced with respect to legality of framing of charge have not
been dealt with by the trial Court and by a cryptic order charges
have been framed. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon
Vijay Kumar Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr., 2015(1)
(2 of 3)
Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 45 and has contended that the revision be allowed
and the case may kindly be remanded back to the trial Court for
passing fresh order after hearing the parties in a speaking way.
Learned public prosecutor has contended that
there is no flaw in the order impugned and no explicit reasons are
needed to be mentioned in framing the charges, hence, the
revision lacks merit and it be dismissed.
Heard both sides and perused the order impugned
and perusal of the order dated 13/08/2002 pertaining to framing
of charge shows that it does not reveal as to what were the
arguments advanced by counsel for the revisionist on the point of
framing of charge nor anything is there as to in which way the
arguments were dealt.
This Court in Vijay Kumar Anr. Vs. State of
Rajasthan Anr., 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 45 has observed that
cryptic order in respect of framing of charge is not sustainable and
material facts considered for framing of charges needs to be
mentioned in the order.
The impugned order has been passed way back
on 13/08/2002 and the trial is lying hampered for about a period
of fifteen years or so.
Upon considering all the factual aspect and nature
of the impugned order, it appears just and lawful to remand the
matter to the trial Court by directing the trial Court to pass fresh
order in respect of framing of charge/s after affording an
opportunity to both the parties.
(3 of 3)
Resultantly, the revision is allowed and impugned
order passed by the trial Court is quashed and learned trial Court
is directed to hear both the sides and pass fresh order dealing
with the substance of the arguments, if advanced and expedite
The revision petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.
The revisionist is directed to appear before the trial Court on
Let the record of the trial Court be remitted back
expeditiously with copy of the order.