Ravinder Singh Vs. State of M.P.

.....it cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. .....on the basis ofthe case diary, submitted that the police has to act promptly, at times, even without recording detailed information lest, they would not be in position to seize contraband or prevent commission of crimes. she also submitted that quantity of contraband item, being 24 bags of 'ganja ', is worth about rs. 15 lakhs. moreover, it has been a consistent stand of the investigating agency that the contraband item 'ganja bags' were seized only from vehicle m.p. 20d 7770 and not from m.p. 20g 7770.2. on due consideration, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, i am not inclined to interfere at the charge stage. apart from seizure of a huge quantity of the contraband item and also the fact that at some point of time, the applicant owned both the vehicles with identical number except a difference of 'd' and 'g' in the middle, there are other materials in plenty to frame charges in question. no doubt, compliance of section 42 is mandatory but the court while construing such provisions should not interpret it so literally as to render its compliance impossible. a literal compliance of section 42 of the n.d.p.s. act, may not only cause delay in trapping the accused but may also make his escape from the law easier [sajan abraham v. state of kerala, (2001) 6 scc 692].3. under the circumstances, i do not find any illegality, impropriety or infirmity in jurisdiction in framing the charges, leading to miscarriage of justice. as such, the criminal revision being devoid of merits, is hereby rejected.