Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 438 r.w. 442 of the BNSS by the petitioner against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Act Cases, Pindwara, District Sirohi in Criminal Original Case No.19/2024 whereby the learned Judge framed charges against the petitioner under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2023, the SHO of Police Station Pindwara intercepted a Maruti Suzuki Ritz car (RJ- 14-CK-3978) during routine vehicle checking. The occupant, Mannalal (resident of Neemuch, M.P.), was found in possession of three plastic bags containing a substance suspected to be opium latex. The contraband, weighing 4 kg 760 grams, was seized and sealed in accordance with law, and Mannalal was arrested.

2.1. During interrogation, Mannalal allegedly disclosed that he had procured the contraband from Pukhraj r/o District Bhilwara and was transporting it for delivery to Madan Devasi r/o District Barmer. Subsequent statements recorded on 02.12.2023 and thereafter implicated additional persons, including alleged intended recipients of portions of the contraband.

2.2. On 05.12.2023, Mannalal purportedly stated that he had purchased the opium from the present petitioner–accused, Kamal Nagda. Based on this disclosure, the petitioner was arrested on 06.12.2023, and a charge-sheet under Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act was filed against him.

2.3. The petitioner contends that he made no voluntary disclosure and that his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers. He further alleges that this grievance was raised before the Court at the time of remand but was not recorded. It is also alleged that on 03.09.2024, charges were framed in his absence through video conferencing without affording him a proper opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the alleged procedural irregularities and denial of fair opportunity, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge has been framed solely on the basis of statements attributed to co- accused persons, which, in law, cannot constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner in the absence of independent corroboration. It is submitted that such an approach is manifestly unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the order dated 03.09.2024, whereby charge has been imposed, is liable to be set aside.

3.1. It is further contended that immediately upon his arrest, co- accused Mannalal named one Pukhraj as the source of the contraband, and on the following day, during investigation before another Station House Officer, he reiterated the said allegation against Pukhraj. However, curiously, five days after the alleged incident, an information was abruptly recorded implicating the present petitioner, and on the very next day he was taken into custody. Learned counsel emphasizes that neither was there any telephonic conversation between the petitioner and co-accused Mannalal, nor was there any communication with any other accused person, as reflected from the investigation record.

3.2. It is argued that despite the absence of any independent material, the petitioner was charged solely on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement dated 05.12.2023 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act attributed to Mannalal. Counsel further submits that, as per the order-sheet of that date, the accused persons were not present before