At the charge-framing stage, the court evaluates if uncontroverted allegations establish an offence, without detailed examination of evidence.

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 petitioner with the principal co-accused. Thus, it is submitted that the present Revision Petition may be allowed and the order dated 19.11.2022 framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act may be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Sahdev v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1173/2019) decided on 02.12.2019.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor while relying upon the charge-sheet (more specifically Page Nos. 3 and 4 of the charge-sheet) submitted that the co-accused-Chattaram specifically stated that the recovered contraband article that is poppy husk was to be handed over to the present petitioner for which the present petitioner gave consideration to him. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are call details between the petitioner and the other other co-accused and therefore, it is submitted that there was specific role of the petitioner in commission of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing the order framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Thus, it is prayed that this Criminal Revision Petition may be rejected.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. I have perused the charge-sheet wherein it is specifically mentioned that in total 148 kg 600 grams of poppy husk has been recovered in the present case. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is involved criminal conspiracy to commit the offence. In the charge-sheet, it is also stated that on the request of the present petitioner, the contraband article was transported by the other co-accused so as to be handed over to him. As per the charge-sheet, there are call records between the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. The investigating agency has filed charge-sheet against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandrahas summarized the principles and has held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under:

"....

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the alle