Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Yes.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

Both these petitions have arisen out of the same order; therefore, they are being taken up together for disposal.

2. The petitioners have filed the present petitions against the order dated 24.3.2026, passed by learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the charges were framed against the petitioners.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). It was asserted that police had set up a Naka on 25.5.2023 at the Bhiuli Chowk, Mandi. They stopped a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-51-BU-9902 and asked the driver to produce the documents. The driver prevaricated. The occupants of the vehicle appeared to be frightened. The police became suspicious and searched the vehicle in the presence of Prakash Chand and Anil Sharma. The driver identified himself as Ankit Pachwaria, and the person sitting as a passenger revealed his name as Sarvagya Sharma. The police searched the vehicle after completing the formalities and recovered 328 grams of charas. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner/accused. The charas was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and as per the result of analysis, the quantity of purified resin in it was found to be 32.86% w/w. The exhibit was an extract of cannabis and a sample of charas. Hence, a charge sheet was filed before the Court for taking action as per the law.

4. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame the charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act vide order dated 24.3.2026.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that the petitioners were falsely implicated and had nothing to do with the commission of the crime. The investigation was not completed fairly and impartially, and relevant evidence was not obtained from the spot. The recovery was made from the private vehicle, as per the prosecution, and the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The police had sufficient time to record the reasons before the search of the vehicle, and the petitioners were entitled to discharge solely on this ground. There were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which made them doubtful. The Court was required to examine whether there existed sufficient ground for proceeding, and if there was no material, the accused was to be discharged. Learned Trial Court held that the issues raised were a matter of trial, and this conclusion is legally unsustainable. The procedural safeguards were violated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. I have heard Mr Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

7. Mr Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the police had not complied with the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which is fatal to the prosecution's case. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that the pleas taken by the petitioners were a matter of trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Boota Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana (2021) 19 SCC 606, Ram Prakash Chadha Vs. State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 651 and ITC Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & anr. 2025 INSC 1111 in support of his submission.

8. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate