Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4833
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GAJENDRA SINGH, J
GIRIRAJ AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4750 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Seema Maheshwari
For the Respondents: Shri S.S Thakur
Co-accused confessions are insufficient to establish a prima facie case for framing charges without direct evidence against the accused.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 15(c), 8(c), 29 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397, 401 - Charges framed under NDPS Act challenged on the grounds of lack of admissible evidence. Evidence of co-accused's confessions cannot substantiate charges against petitioners. Essential ingredients for charges are not satisfied - Revision dismissed. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Admissibility of Evidence - Co-accused confession statements do not suffice for prima facie case; mere mention in memos is insufficient - Court emphasized on the need for credible evidence before framing charges. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were implicated based solely on a co-accused's confession, with no direct evidence or seizure related to them. The investigation yielded no material against them apart from mere assertions.
Findings of Court:
The available material does not justify framing charges due to absence of direct evidence or involvement of petitioners; mere suspicions are insufficient.
Issues: Whether the mere mention of petitioners' names and co-accused confessions can justify framing charges under the NDPS Act?
Ratio Decidendi: Charges under NDPS Act could not be sustained in absence of direct involvement of petitioners or reliable evidentiary support; the court ruled that assumptions based on co-accused's statements alone are inadequate for trial.
Result: Criminal revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding fir and charges against petitioners. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH rd ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4750 of 2022 GIRIRAJ AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:
Ms.Seema Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.S Thakur -G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 is preferred challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 in SCNDPS No.51/22 by Additional Special Judge (NSPS Act), Mandsaur whereby charges under sections 15 (c) r/w section 8 (c) r/w section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been framed against the revision petitioners.
2. Facts in brief are that an FIR No.425/2016 was registered under section 15 r/w section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and section 307 of the IPC and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at PS Nahargarh, district Mandsaur on 30.09.2016 when vehicle no.RJ-37-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR UA-0688 was apprehended with contraband. A final report was submitted against Ashok Dangi, Jayakumar @ Babu Kumar Sindhi and Mukesh Dakad keeping the investigation pending under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C against the present revision petitioners. The present revision petitioners were apprehended on 25.08.2022 and supplementary final report was submitted against them. The trial court framed the charges and this revision petition is preferred on the ground that petitioners have been implicated only on the basis of memorandum of Ashok Dangi recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is not admissible in evidence. Except the memorandum of co-accused, there is no material available against the present petitioners. There is no seizure from the present petitioners. The essential ingredients of the offence are lacking in the whole charge sheet. The trial court did not consider the objections of the petitioners. The revision petitioners have relied o n Karan Talwar vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 2024 INSC 1012 and Ismail Khan and another vs. State of M.P - LAWS (MPH)
- 2019-5-101.
3. Heard.
4. Counsel for the State has opposed the objections referring to the statements of Shankarlal Bhil s/o Nanuram, Raju s/o Bhuvansiram Malviya, Babulal Suryavanshi s/o Bherulal and Vinod Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR Suryavanshi s/o Mangilal recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 on 28.07.2022 and 02.08.2022.
5. Perused the record.
6. In Karan Talwar (supra) the apex Court has held in para-
12 as under:
12. As noted hereinbefore, the sole material available against the appellant is the confession statement of the co-accused viz. accused No.1, which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial and against the appellant. When that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appellant to stand the trial. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence at the trial stage it would e a miscarriage of justice to make the person concerned to stand the trial.
7. In the case of Ismail Khan (supra), this Court has held in para-19 as under:
19. In the present cases also, it is fairly and Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR unanimously admitted by the learned Public Prosecutors representing the State in their respective assigned matters that there is no material except the disclosure made by the co-accused that they had procured or were going to deliver the substance recovered from them to the petitioners. Neither anything was recovered from the petitioners nor were they found registered owner of the vehicles carrying the contraband or liquor as the case may be. There is also nothing on record to get satisfaction that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant and other co-accused
