The court upheld the framing of charges under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence over extensive factual investigation at the charge stage.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Faridkot and for staying the operation of impugned order dated 08.08.2025. Further prayer has been made for staying the further proceedings before the learned trial Court during the pendency of the present petition and the learned trial Court may kindly be directed to adjourn the matter beyond the date fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party, while on patrolling on 02.11.2020, saw two persons coming on the motorcycle, who were carrying a plastic bag being held by the pillion rider, kept in between both of them. On suspicion, they were stopped and on asking, they disclosed their names to be Amandeep Singh @ Amna and Kuldeep Singh. They were suspected to be carrying some contraband in the plastic bag and thus the search was conducted. On conducting the search, 15000 narcotic tablets were recovered from the same. They failed to produce any licence regarding the narcotic tablets recovered and thus, the FIR under Sections 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act was registered and both were arrested on the spot. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, he was also arrayed as an accused in the present case vide GD No.25, dated 27.04.2022 as he was the owner of the truck bearing registration No.RJ-13-GB-0775. Thereafter, as no case was made out under section 29 of NDPS Act against the petitioner, the same was deleted and Section 25 of NDPS Act was added vide GD No.47, dated 04.10.2022. Supplementary challan was presented against the petitioner and thereafter, the matter was adjourned for arguments on charge. The petitioner moved an application for discharge on the ground of absence of prima facie grounds, however the same was dismissed vide its impugned order dated 08.08.2025 and the learned trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner under Section 25 of NDPS Act. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any recovery has been effected from him, however he has been clandestinely implicated in the present case and the charge under Section 25 of NDPS Act has been illegally framed against him by the learned trial Court. He has submitted that the petitioner and his son have fallen victim to the atrocities committed by the police and the petitioner has no concern with the recovery effected. He has submitted that during the investigation, a cock and bull story was made by the Investigating Agencies that the contraband recovered from the co-accused was brought in the truck bearing registration No.RJ-13- GB-0775, which is owned by the petitioner. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has framed the charge under Section 25 of NDPS Act vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025, which is totally against the law settled. He has submitted that even if the petitioner is found to be the owner of the truck, no charge could be framed for the offence under Section 25 of NDPS Act. He has submitted that as per the mandate of the statutory provisions of Section 25 of NDPS Act, one cannot be prosecuted in the absence of the knowledge and consent to use the vehicle. He has submitted that the challan has been presented against the petitioner and there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner had the knowledge and consent for the use of the vehicle for the offence committed under the