The admissibility and sufficiency of evidence, particularly the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, are crucial in determining the grounds for framing charges against an accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has sought setting aside of order dated 18.10.2011, passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the court has directed framing of charges against the petitioner herein and the private respondents under Sections 8/21/29/60 NDPS Act and consequently framed formal charges against them, on the ground that the so called statement recorded by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 67 NDPS Act does not disclose any offence against the petitioner. In fact there was no material which could prompt the trial court to frame charges against the petitioner. As the present petition has been filed by one of the accused in the case, namely, Munish Khosla, the order passed in the present petition shall govern the said petitioner and any observation or finding herein shall confine to the present petition and not to have any effect on the merits of the case pending before the trial court. It is submitted during the course of arguments that the respondent No. 3, Vishal Gupta, has since expired.

2. Heard Mr. P.N. Raina, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1.

3. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 reveals that the occurrence of 23.07.2007 which is stated to have taken place at B.C. Road, near Shakuntla Theatre resulted into filing of the complaint against the petitioner herein and three other accused persons. As per the case set up by the complainant, one Maruti Car bearing registration no. DL8CD-5211 was intercepted near Shakuntla Cinema as the naka was laid by the NCB team. During checking, Pritam Singh and Vishal Gupta were found to be the occupants of the vehicle. The vehicle was searched and 0.600 kilo gram cocaine was allegedly found in the vehicle. The seizure of the contraband and other formalities were completed. The statements of the aforesaid persons under Section 67 NDPS Act were recorded and they revealed the involvement of Munish Khosla and Rahil Verma alias Ricky in this case of smuggling of the narcotic drugs. The statement of petitioner-Munish Khosla under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded on 24.07.2009. The accused Rahil Verma who is stated to have supplied the narcotics to Pritam Singh and Vishal Gupta is still at large.

4. Mr. P.N. Raina, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that except for the statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged commission of offence. In fact the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act is not admissible in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 152/2013, decided on 29.10.2020 : 2020 (5) JKJ 270[SC]. Further it is submitted that the statement itself does not make out any case for framing the charges against the petitioner. Mr. Malhotra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the involvement of the petitioner is prima facie evident from the statement recorded in terms of Section 67 of the Act. There is no illegality in the order impugned in the present petition.

5. It is not in dispute that except for the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act there is no other evidence implicating the petitioner in the present case. It is apparent from the order impugned in the petition that the trial court while framing the charges against the petitioner-accused also has not stated as to how the evidence brought on record by the complainant makes out a case for framing charges against the petitioner-accused. The trial court has indeed given the facts as mentioned in the complaint and has also stated that at the stage of framing of charge the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. The bare look at the s