Charges must be substantiated by legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioners Ambalal, Radheyshyam and Chhogalal for assailing the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.46/2014 (47/2008) whereby charges were framed against the accused petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and Sections 211 & 120-B of the IPC.

2. Previously by order dated 04.07.2014, the trial court had framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision (No. 1280/2014) which came to be decided by order dated 22.05.2015 and the order dated 04.07.2014 was quashed and set aside in the following manner:-

3. In furtherance to such direction, the trial court re-heard the arguments advanced by learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and passed the order dated 31.10.2018 framing charges against the petitioners in the above terms.

4. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the revision are noted herein below:-

On 21.01.2007, the SHO PS Badi Sadari received a secret information and acting in furtherance thereof he proceeded to search the house of one Rooplal Dangi at the Village Fachar and recovered 1 Kg of contraband opium. Rooplal was arrested and after conducting investigation, the petitioners too were arrested in this case. The Investigating Officer carried out investigation and reached to a conclusion that the petitioners had conspired to get the opium planted in the house of Rooplal. Accordingly, an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was filed qua the accused Rooplal whereas the accused petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The Special Court rejected the application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. filed by the 10 qua the accused Rooplal and the matter was sent back to the investigating agency for further investigation by a senior police officer. In furtherance to the said direction, further investigation was undertaken and once more, the 10 proceeded to submit an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. qua the accused Rooplal while the chargesheet against the petitioners was reiterated. The trial court rejected the said application and took cognizance against accused Rooplal for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act observing that the investigating agency was seeking discharge of the said accused purely on the basis of the confessional statements of the co-accused persons, which were ex-facie not admissible in evidence and on the contrary, the witnesses of seizure were establishing a prima facie case against the accused Rooplal. Upon remand by this Court, the matter was re-heard and charges were framed against the accused petitioners as above by order dated 31.10.2018 which is assailed in this revision.

5. Learned counsel Shri Pitaliya vehemently and fervently urged that there does not exist a semblance of evidence on the record of the case so as to justify framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. He urged that the possession of the opium in question has been persistently attributed to Rooplal as he has been charged by the trial court for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act by observing that there is prima facie evidence on record to show his involvement for such offence. Shri Pitaliya urged that ex-facie, there is no material whatsoever on the entire record which can show that the petitioners were ever in possession or control of the house from where the opium was recovered or that they got the opium planted and thus, there was no justification whatsoever for the trial court to have directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act which makes possession of contraband opium to be an offence or for the offences under Sections 211 & 120-B IPC. He further urged that this Co