IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)

1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sanchore in Sessions Case No. 154/2022 whereby, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 8/22 and 8/25 of NDPS Act so also the order dated 06.06.2023 whereby, the trial dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for acquittal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during inspection of medical store M/s Ganpati Medical Agency, certain psychotropic substance was recovered from the godown. FIR No.1/2022 was registered against the petitioner at CBN, Chittorgarh for offence under Sections 8/22 and 8/25 NDPS Act. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the petitioner. At the time of framing of charges, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for acquittal. However, the learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 06.06.2023 and framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 8/22 and 8/25 NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under NDPS Act is made out against the petitioner. The recovered drugs is defined under Section 3(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and therefore, case should be considered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is further argued that commercial quantity of Tramadol and Nitrazepam drug is not application under the wholesale license holder of drugs as per conditions of the license. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the police has filed chargesheet against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner did not have bill for Tramadol and Nitrazepam drug whereas, the petitioner had details of stock sold and purchased, from which it can be verified that the seized drugs cannot be said to be illegal. Thus, the trial court has not properly looked into the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court after considering the entire facts and circumstances rightly framed charges against the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. Moreover, the trial court is at the fag end and trial is pending only for the evidence of Investigating officer, therefore, the present revision petition may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival arguments and perused the material available on record including the challan papers.

6. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

7. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 & 228 Cr.P.C., which are as below :

"(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will