Back
SANDEEP MEHTA
Amba Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
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
Charges must be substantiated by legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.
At the charge-framing stage, the court evaluates if uncontroverted allegations establish an offence, without detailed examination of evidence.
wherever a Court comes to conclusion that the process of Court is being abuses, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refused the party from pursuing the remedy in law.
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is required only when contraband is seized from a person, not from belongings.
Co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible against another accused, and the court must only assess prima facie evidence at the charge framing stage.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, not a detailed examination of evidence, allowing for strong suspicion to justify proceeding with charges.
At the charge framing stage, the court assesses whether there is a prima facie case based on the prosecution's evidence without detailed examination of the merits.
In narcotic drug cases, subsequent procedural non-compliance and shifting of occurrence location do not preclude ongoing trials; mandatory provisions of NDPS Act must be adhered to but are contextual....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
