Back
MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Prahlad Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
The present Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order framing charges dated 19.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 174/2021 whereby charges for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act have been framed against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while relying upon the statements of the co-accused - Chattaram, the petitioner was entangled in the present case. It is submitted that when the contraband article was recovered, the petitioner was not present at the site. Even, the witnesses of the site have not stated anything against the petitioner. It is further submitted that even the persons from whose possession the contraband article was recovered have not named the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's name has nowhere been mentioned in the FIR, but the learned Court below has not considered this material aspect of the matter and on conjectures and surmises has framed charge against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that there no connection of the
At the charge-framing stage, the court evaluates if uncontroverted allegations establish an offence, without detailed examination of evidence.
Charges must be substantiated by legally admissible evidence, not mere suspicion or conjecture.
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.
Charges under the NDPS Act cannot be framed based solely on co-accused statements and CDR evidence without establishing grave suspicion against the accused.
Charges cannot be framed solely on the basis of co-accused statements without corroborating evidence.
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, courts assess if allegations, taken as a whole, constitute an offence, without delving into trial outcomes or evidence credibility.
A prima facie case is sufficient for framing charges, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish lack of connection to the contraband.
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
