##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:47203]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 284/2024 CNR: RJHC010105192024 | URN: CRLR / 623U / 2024 Bheru Lal S/o Shankar Lal Aheer, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chaktiya Ps Mangalwad, Teh Dungla, Dist Chittorgarh, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Ncb ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari Mr. Aidan Chaudhary Mr.Gaurav Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Thana Ram Bishnoi Mr.Gopal Singh for CBN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable-

28/09/2026

1.By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.153/2023, whereby charge for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, ‘the NDPS Act’) has been framed against the petitioner.

2.The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that his implication in the case rests essentially upon the statements allegedly made by co-accused Rameshwar and Kalu under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the statement thereafter attributed to the petitioner himself under the said provision. It is contended that neither was the petitioner present at the place of search and seizure nor was any contraband recovered from his possession; further, the record does not disclose any specific overt act constituting abetment or conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. It is also contended that the alleged explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding possession of ₹68,500/- is, by itself, wholly insufficient to constitute the offence alleged against him.

3.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 15.02.2023, on the basis of source information, a team of the Central Narcotics Bureau proceeded to village Chaktiya, District Chittorgarh, where searches were conducted at the premises allegedly connected with accused Rameshwar, Kalu and their other brothers and substantial quantities of opium, poppy husk and certain tablets were allegedly recovered. Rameshwar and Kalu were thereafter taken to the office of the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Neemuch, where their statements were recorded and they were arrested. Subsequently, the petitioner Bheru Lal, who is stated to be a distant brother-in-law of Rameshwar, came to meet the arrested accused persons. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the statements of Rameshwar and Kalu, summon under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was issued to the petitioner and his statement was recorded, wherein he allegedly admitted having assisted the accused persons in their illegal narcotic trade. The petitioner was thereafter arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 8/18(B), 15(C), 22(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. Upon his personal search, cash amounting to ₹68,500/- and an identity card relating to service as a constable in the Rajasthan Police were allegedly recovered. The prosecution further alleges that, upon being questioned regarding the cash, the petitioner stated that he had brought the amount with an intention to pay it to the narcotics officials so as to secure some relaxation for his distant brother-in-law Rameshwar in relation to his statement. The charge-sheet was subsequently filed and the learned trial Court, vide order dated 06.12.2023, framed charge against the petitioner under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

4.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully scrutinized the material placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy requires examination within the limited, yet significant, parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction at the stage of framing of charge. It is well settled that although the Court is not required to conduct a roving appreciation of evidence or determine the ultimate p