ORDER

1. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 462019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (NDPS Act), Jaora, District Ratlam, in S.S.T. No. 15/2018, by which the trial Court has framed charges under section 8(C)/15(C), 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'The Act, 1985') against the applicant.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 15.4.2018, police received a source information from informant that one eicher truck bearing Registration No. MP 09 GF 1015 was going towards Mandsaur to Ratlam loaded with garlic and they kept illegal poppy straw in the truck. Thereafter, Police prepared necessary punchnama, called two independent witnesses and reached the spot. After some time as per the information, Police force saw one eicher truck bearing Registration No. MP 09 GF 1015, coming towards Mandsaur and after seeing the Police force two persons fled away from the vehicle. During search of the vehicle, 124 bags of garlic and 69 bags of poppy straw was found. Total quantity of 15 quintal, 16 kgs., 500 grams of poppy straw was recovered from the truck. After that Police registered FIR bearing crime No. 122/2018, arrested Firoz Khan, the owner of the vehicle and his statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded in which he has stated that the aforesaid contraband was loaded in the truck by the present applicant and coaccused Girirajsingh @ Gangnarayan. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the present applicant was arrested. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicant and other accused persons for the aforesaid offence.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that the present applicant was not present on the spot and no contra-band has been recovered from his possession. The complicity of the applicant is alleged only on the basis of the disclosure statement, said to have been made by Firoz Khan, to the effect that the contraband was being loaded in the truck by the present applicant along with Girirajsingh and Gangnarayan. However, no fact as such, could be discovered on the basis of his statement, therefore, there is no legally admissible evidence within the meaning of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'The Act') amounting to discovery of fact. Apart from this there is no other evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the present crime. Hence he prayed that impugned order of the trial court be set aside and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid offences.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and prayed for rejection of this petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R and no contraband has been recovered from his possession. Neither he is the owner of the vehicle nor he was present in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. He was not apprehended from the spot. He was implicated in the present matter only disclosure statement, said to have been made by Firoz Khan, to the effect that the contraband was being loaded in the truck by the present applicant along with Girirajsingh and Gangnarayan. The memorandum of co-accused is nothing except a confessional statement given before the police officials, which is not admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Apart from this the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the applicant was involved in the present crime.

7. Section 27 of 'The Act', in terms, provides that only that information which distinctly relates to the discovery of fact is admissible in evidence. In the landmark de