1. Criminal revision against order framing charges under NDPS Act and IPC for alleged diversion of controlled substances. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(UK) 368
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Mahra, J.
Rahul Chaudhary - Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2020
Decided On : 26-09-2025
Important Points
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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act Referred
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.25(a), S.26, S.29, S.38, S.9(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.420, S.467
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.227
DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT : S.34
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.420, S.467
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.227
DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT : S.34
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.
(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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for N.C.B. with Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Standing Counsel
For the Revisionist : Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for N.C.B. with Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Standing Counsel
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over vicarious liability of director for company's alleged diversion of controlled substances under NDPS Act. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Revision dismissed; trial court's order framing charges upheld as prima facie case made out. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. What is the scope of judicial interference at the stage of framing of charges?
At the stage of framing charges, the court only examines whether a prima facie case exists; it is not required to weigh evidence or assess credibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 )
5. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction against an order framing charges?
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly only in cases of manifest illegality or patent error, not to reassess the merits of the material. (Para 7 , 10 )
6. Can a co-accused claim parity to seek discharge if their factual role is different?
Parity with a co-accused is not applicable when the factual role of the accused is distinct and materially different from that of the co-accused. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mahra, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been filed impugning the judgment & order dated 12.12.2019 rendered by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act, Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial No.26 of 2014, whereby learned trial Court had proceeded to frame charges against the revisionist under Sections 9-A , 25-A, 26 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as Sections 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. According to the revisionist, he is one of the Directors of M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd., a company duly incorporated in February 2006, along with Late Shri Anuj Singh, Shri Kirpal Singh, and Shri Gaurav Ahlawat. The said company is engaged in the manufacturing and distribution of over 400 pharmaceutical formulations throughout the territory of India. The revisionist was primarily entrusted with the management and supervision of the marketing operations of the company. Further, the revisionist was appointed as an Additional Director in another pharmaceutical concern, namely, M/s Alto Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., where he was similarly charged with the responsibility of overseeing marketing activities. It is stated that M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the production of a wide range of pharmaceutical formulations, including tablets, dry powder injections, injectable solutions, syrups, ointments, and capsules. The company operates under a valid manufacturing license issued by the Drug Controller, Uttarakhand, and possesses an approved list of drugs/products duly authorized by the Drug Controller for the purposes of manufacturing and distribution. According to the revisionist, on 28.12.2011, the NOC, Sub Zone, Dehradun received an intimation from the NOC, Zone, Lucknow, alleging that M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd., Roorkee, District Haridwar, had illicitly exported Pseudo Ephedrine to Mexico. The communication directed the Sub Zone office to initiate a thorough inquiry into the alleged contravention. Pursuant thereto, the NOC, Sub Zone, Dehradun undertook a detailed investigation into the matter at its level. During the course of the investigation, it was ascertained that M/s Francis Remedies Pvt. Ltd., in conjunction with several other entities, had engaged in multiple commercial transactions. An examination of the available sale and stock registers disclosed a total of forty-two transactions executed between the said companies. To verify the details, notices were issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to 11 firms with whom the firm of the revisionist used to deal in order to collect their statements and relevant documents. The director of M/s Francis Remedies Pvt. Ltd. was asked to present all documents relating to business transactions with these 11 firms. The investigation concluded that these 11 companies were involved in selling medicines allegedly containing Pseudo Ephedrine and Ephedrine and all related documents such as bills, purchase orders, and stock registers were found to be skillfully fabricated. In reality, the companies did not receive or sell the Pseudo Ephedrine or Ephedrine products they claimed to have handled. During the course of the investigation, it was discerned that M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd. had failed to prepare the RCS Order 1993, Form No. 5, and Form No. 2, in the manner prescribed under the statutory provisions. In the course of the inquiry, a notice was issued to the accused, Shri Gaurav Ahlawat, Director of M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd., directing him to appear before the Investigating Officer and furnish a statement disclosing the accurate facts. Notwithstanding the same, the accused evaded appearance and failed to disclose the correct facts to the investigator. Consequent to the investigation, it was concluded that the accused-Gaurav Ahlawat had unlawfully sold 98 kilograms of Pseudoephedrine and 231 kilograms of Ephedrine, both being scheduled controlled substances through clandestine channels,
