Point of Law: Strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in challan, titled, Union Territory of J&K vs. Mohd Sadiq and Another, by virtue of which besides sections 8(c) and sections 21, 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act), the petitioners has also been charged under sections 25 and 27-A of the Act.

2. It is stated that there is no evidence on record with regard to the commission of offences under sections 25 and 27-A of the Act, as such, the learned trial court could not have framed the charges against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 25 and 27-A of the Act.

3. Status report stands filed by the respondent, in which it is stated that on 25.06.2020, during routine patrol checking, the Police officials saw a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. JK-11A-8312 parked on the road side and two unknown persons were sitting on it. On seeing the police party, they started the Motorcycle in order to run away but they were apprehended by the Police personnel. The pillion rider was having a bag, red, green and yellow in colour, on which 'Mohsin' was written in English. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Mohd Sadiq, petitioner herein and the person, who was driving the Motorcycle disclosed his name as Mohd Rafiq. During search, a pink coloured polythene was found in the bag, which was having rupees five lacs Indian currency along with approximately 4 grams of Heroin like substance. Thereafter, FIR bearing No. 107/2020 for commission of offences under sections 8, 21, 22, 25, 27-A and 29 of the Act was registered with Police Station, Manjakote and after the conclusion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the trial court.

4. Mr. Monish Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a bare perusal of the challan as well as the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer in support of the challan would reveal that there is absolutely no evidence on record with regard to the commission of offences under sections 25 and 27-A of the Act. Mr. Chopra further submitted that as the Investigating Officer has himself come to the conclusion that the recovery of Rs. 5.00 lacs and drugs from the same bag in possession of the said persons clearly indicates that the money was the proceeds of sale of the drugs.

5. Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, learned GA appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that the learned trial court after hearing the arguments of the parties has framed the charges and there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the learned trial court.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. The order impugned reads as under:

“1. PP present. Learned counsel for the accused through Video Conferencing. Heard the arguments on charge. Prima facie offence under sections 8(c) 21/22/25/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act are made out against accused Mohd. Sadiq alias Matoo and offences under 8(c) 21/22/27(A)/29 of NDPS Act are made out against accused Mohd. Rafiq. Charge has been framed and read over to both the accused through Video Conferencing. The signatures of the accused have also been taken on the memos of charge sent to District Jail, Dhangri though a Special messenger. The accused have denied the allegations leveled against them in the memos of charge and claimed to be tried by the court. Therefore, prosecution is directed to lead evidence. Put up on 24.12.2020.”

8. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned trial court has heard the arguments on charge and thereafter has simply framed the charges without reflecting as to what were the arguments those were advanced by the accused. No doubt while framing the charge, no reasons are required to be given but nonetheless, once the learned trial court mentions in its order that the arguments were heard then it was oblig