1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned.

2. The present revision petitions have been filed by petitioners Mukesh and Salag Ram challenging the order dated 25.6.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No. 41/2007, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed charges against petitioner Salag Ram for the offence under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and against petitioner Mukesh for the offence under Section 8/25 of the said Act.

3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though petitioner Mukesh is the registered owner of the motorcycle in question but the prosecution has not given any evidence to the effect that the recovered opium was being plied on the motorcycle with the knowledge of present petitioner Mukesh. He further submits that so far as petitioner Salag Ram is concerned, the only evidence against-him is to the effect that co-accused Shyam Lal, who is said to be another conspirator, save an information to the police officer that petitioner Salag Ram was the person who had supplied the opium, which is said to have been recovered from co-accused Ganpat Ram before three years. Learned counsel submits that the statement of co-accused given to the police officer is not admissible in evidence unless such statement results into discovery of some incriminating fact and thus, it is submitted that the charges, which have been directed to be framed against the two petitioners, viz. Mukesh and Salag Ram deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Kailash Lohar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 781/2008, decided on 26.8.2008 for the purpose of canvassing the argument that the charge under Section 29 of the -N.D.P.S. Act cannot be framed simply on the basis of the information furnished by co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petitions.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar.

6. So far as petitioner Mukesh is concerned, undisputedly he is the registered owner of the motorcycle in question, from which the contraband opium was 'recovered from Ganpat Ram, the father of petitioner Mukesh. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error in framing charge against petitioner Mukesh for the offence under Section 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Whether or not the opium was being plied on the motorcycle in the knowledge of petitioner Mukesh, is to be considered by the trial Court whilst deciding the case finally after the trial of the case. The burden of proving it to the contrary is on the accused by virtue of Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Accordingly, the order framing charge against petitioner Mukesh cannot be said to be illegal by any stretch of imagination.

7. So far as petitioner Salag Rain is concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that as against petitioner Salag Ram, apart from the statement of co-accused given to the police officer, there exists no material on the record of the case, by which it can be said that petitioner Salag Ram conspired with the other co-accused for the purpose of supplying the opium to the accused Ganpat Ram. The statement of co-accused Shyam Lal given to a police officer is not admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Though the statement is said to be given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but such statement of co-accused Shyam Lal has not culminated into discovery of any incriminating material. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, such statement of co-accused given to the police officer cannot be said to be a piece of substantive evidence, on the strength whereof the charge can be framed against petitioner Salag Ram. The law in this regard is well-settled that the part of t