Back
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Raju Saini @ Rajkumar @ Rajendra Saini – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner aggrieved from order of charge dated 05.01.2023 in Sessions Case No. 12/2022 arising out of FIR No. 86/2021 registered at P.S. Viratnagar, Jaipur Rural whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Shahpura, Jaipur had framed charge under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act against petitioner.
2. The fact of the matter is that upon receiving information regarding transition of certain contraband goods, SHO Virat Nagar had recorded it in writing under Section 42 of NDPS Act and sent it to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural, thereafter on interception on 09.04.2021 around 7.30 P.M. two persons namely Rampal Gurjar and Hitesh Kirad were found travelling with unidentified item in plastic bag kept in carton. Thereafter, effecting recovery and seizure as per provisions, a total of 4.230 Kg of 'Ganja' was recovered from two packets. After completing the formalities, case was registered and during investigation, mobile call details were obtained whereby it was found that both Rampal Gurjar and Hitesh Kirad were involved with present petitioner. After confirming the involvement of present petitioner, he was arrested and ultimate
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.
Charges under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained on the basis of inadmissible evidence without corroboration.
At the charge-framing stage, the court evaluates if uncontroverted allegations establish an offence, without detailed examination of evidence.
The admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, particularly the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, are crucial in determining the grounds for framing charges against an accused.
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
Charges must be substantiated by legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.
The admissibility of evidence, including confessional statements, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, were central legal points established in the judgment.
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
