Charges cannot be framed solely on the basis of co-accused statements without corroborating evidence.

Order :

1. The present revision petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') by which the present petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1985').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution story, on 18.09.2023, the contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused persons namely Kushal Singh and Badal Khan and during investigation, the accused persons informed the Investigating Officer that the alleged recovered contraband was to be delivered to the present petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that merely on the statement of the co- accused persons, the charge has been framed against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the Act of 1985.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially, the charge-sheet has been filed only against the co-accused persons and the investigation qua the present petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., however in the supplementary charge-sheet, there is no evidence against the present petitioner, except the statements of the co-accused persons. Learned counsel further contended that learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2024, framed the charge against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the Act of 1985 and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India reported in 2021 Cr.L.R. [SC] 1791, decided on 25.10.2021 and also the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Roshan Sansi Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.117/2022), decided on 19.05.2022 .

5. Learned Public Prosecutor while vehemently opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the accused-persons from whose possession the alleged contraband has been recovered, have categorically stated in their statements that the contraband was to be delivered to the present petitioner, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioner, the present petition is liable to be dismissed and the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer) be upheld.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, as per the prosecution story, on 18.09.2023, about 47 kg of 'Ganja' was recovered from the possession of Kushal Singh and Badal Khan, who were arrested on the same day and during interrogation, the accused persons informed the Investigating Officer that the alleged contraband was to be delivered to the present petitioner. There is no evidence against the present petitioner except the statements of the co-accused persons. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev (supra) has held that in the absence of other evidence no charge can be framed merely on the basis of statement of co-accused and also the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Roshan (supra), while placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev (supra), had discharged the petitioner on the basis that there is no other evidence against the petitioner except the statement of co-accused persons.

8. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the absence of any evidence against the present petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the