2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
ANKIT PACHWARIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/223/2026

Framing of charges requires only a prima facie case or grave suspicion, not detailed reasoning. Non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act in chance recoveries and defective investigations are matters for trial and do not justify discharge at the initial stage.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 29 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227 and 228 - Framing of charges - The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case; the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into, and it is impermissible to examine material threadbare to determine whether the accused is likely to be convicted (Paras 10-13) - There is no legal requirement for the Trial Court to pass a detailed speaking order while framing charges; the act of framing the charge itself is a prima facie order that the judge has formed the opinion that there is ground for presuming the accused committed the offence (Paras 16-19)

(B) NDPS Act - Section 42 - Search and seizure - Non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the Act is a matter of trial and evidence, and the accused cannot be discharged solely on these grounds (Para 21) - In cases of chance recovery, the strict requirements of Section 42 are not applicable (Paras 23-26)

(C) Conscious Possession - Recovery of contraband from a vehicle - All occupants of a vehicle from which contraband is recovered are presumed to be in conscious possession of the same (Para 14)

(D) Criminal Investigation - Defective investigation, such as the failure to collect CCTV footage, does not result in the discharge or acquittal of the accused, as criminal justice should not become a casualty of minor mistakes by the Investigating Officer (Paras 28-32) (E) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction - The revisional court is to examine the legality or regularity of the procedure and does not sit as an appellate court to appreciate evidence or sift through contradictions in witness statements (Para 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Trial Court framing charges against them for offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The charges followed the recovery of 328 grams of charas from a vehicle occupied by the petitioners during a police search. The petitioners sought discharge on grounds including non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, defective investigation, and the absence of a detailed speaking order while framing charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners. It held that detailed reasons are not required for framing charges and that the alleged procedural lapses regarding the search and investigation are matters of trial, not grounds for discharge.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in framing charges without recording detailed reasons and whether non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act or flaws in investigation warranted the discharge of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that at the framing stage, the judge only needs to form a presumptive opinion on the existence of factual ingredients of the offence, not a certainty of conviction. Since the contraband was recovered from the vehicle, conscious possession was prima facie established. Furthermore, in cases of chance recovery, Section 42 compliance is not mandatory for the initiation of trial, and defective investigation is not a ground for discharge. The revisional court's scope is limited to ensuring no patent illegality exists.

Result: petitions fail and are dismissed.