2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 965043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Alok Mahra, J
RAHUL CHAUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
CRLR 13 / 2020

At the stage of framing charges, the court only examines whether a prima facie case exists based on material on record; detailed evidence weighing and defence arguments are matters for trial. Revisional interference is sparingly granted.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 9-A, 25-A, 26 and 29 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 467 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227, 228, 397 and 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 34 - NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 38 - RCS Order, 1993 - Framing of charges - Scope of interference at stage of discharge - Revisional jurisdiction - Prima facie case - Vicarious liability of director.

(B) Criminal Procedure - Framing of charges - At the stage of framing of charges under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused; it is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence or evaluate credibility of prosecution witnesses. The test is whether the material on record, if unrebutted, is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. (Para 5, 6 - State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh)

(C) Revisional jurisdiction - Under Sections 397 and 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court should exercise its power sparingly and only in cases of gross errors, non-compliance with legal provisions, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. The High Court should not unduly interfere with the trial court’s decision unless there is a manifest error of law or jurisdiction. Quashing of charges is an exception and should not be resorted to routinely. (Para 7 - Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander)

(D) Vicarious liability - Merely being a director is not sufficient to establish guilt; there must be prima facie evidence showing that the person was in-charge of and responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. However, at the stage of framing charges, if the material on record, including a voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS Act and investigation findings, gives rise to grave suspicion regarding the accused’s involvement, a prima facie case exists and the matter must proceed to trial. The defence that the accused was only responsible for marketing and not day-to-day affairs is a matter to be tested at trial. (Para 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The revisionist, a director of a pharmaceutical company, was charged with offences under the NDPS Act and IPC for alleged diversion of controlled substances (pseudoephedrine and ephedrine) through fabricated invoices and non-compliance with the RCS Order, 1993. The investigation revealed that the company had illicitly exported pseudoephedrine to Mexico and that 11 firms were involved in selling medicines containing controlled substances using fabricated documents. The revisionist gave a voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS Act admitting his responsibility as Director of Sales and his involvement in the activities. The trial court framed charges against him. His application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The revisionist contended that he was not in-charge of day-to-day affairs and sought parity with co-accused Kirpal Singh, who had been discharged by the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the material collected during investigation, including the revisionist’s voluntary statement and allegations of diversion and fabrication, unmistakably gave rise to a grave and substantial suspicion regarding his involvement, constituting a prima facie case. The contention regarding limited role and parity with co-accused were matters of defence to be adjudicated at trial. The trial court’s order framing charges was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The revision was dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the revisionist under the NDPS Act and IPC? (ii) Whether the revisionist could be held vicariously liable merely as a director? (iii) Whether the revisionist was entitled to discharge on the ground of parity with co-accused Kirpal Singh?

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to see if a prima facie case exists; it is not to weigh evidence or assess credibility. The revisionist’s voluntary admission under Section 67 NDPS Act and the investigation findings provided sufficient grounds to presume his involvement. The defence of limited role and the claim of parity with co-accused (whose role was factually distinct) cannot be decided at this stage but must await trial. Result : Criminal Revision dismissed.