Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Rajendra Sitaram Bhoknal, original accused no.1, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 25-7-2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner, rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 CrPC in Sessions Case No. 2/2007. The case arose from Crime No. III-26/2006 registered at Taluka Police Station, Sangamner, against the applicant and two other accused under Sections 8, 20(a) and (b), 22, and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), on the allegation that they planted cannabis (ganja) trees in their field bearing Survey No. 36/4 at village Nimaj. The applicant contended that the land did not belong to him but to accused nos.2 and 3, and that a partition had taken place long back. He filed a discharge application on 23-3-2009, which was rejected by the trial court. The High Court perused the 7/12 extract produced by the applicant, which showed the land in the names of accused nos.2 and 3 as of 2-9-2006, after the registration of the offence. The court noted that the applicant was not the owner or co-owner of the land, and therefore, no prima facie case was made out against him. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application, quashed the impugned order, and discharged the applicant from the offence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge under Section 227 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court must consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; if the evidence does not disclose a prima facie case, the accused is entitled to discharge. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 227 - The applicant, accused no.1, sought discharge contending that the land Survey No. 36/4 where ganja plants were found belonged to accused nos.2 and 3, not to him. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that since the 7/12 extract showed the land in the names of accused nos.2 and 3, and the applicant was not the owner or co-owner, there was no prima facie case against him. The impugned order was quashed and the applicant was discharged. (Paras 1-6) B) Narcotic Drugs - Ownership of Land - Prima Facie Case - The mere presence of cannabis plants on a land not owned by the accused does not constitute a prima facie case against him under the NDPS Act. - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 8, 20, 22, 27 - The applicant was charged with planting ganja trees in a field. The 7/12 extract dated 2-9-2006 showed the land in the names of accused nos.2 and 3. The High Court found that the applicant had no ownership or possession of the land, and therefore, no prima facie case was made out against him. The discharge application ought to have been allowed. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant (original accused no.1) is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the land where the alleged cannabis plants were found is not owned by him.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-7-2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner, below Exhibit 19 in Sessions Case No. 2/2007, is quashed and set aside. The applicant (original accused no.1) is discharged from the offence.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Ownership of land
- NDPS Act Sections 8
- 20
- 22
- 27
