SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition against the order dated 5th October, 2009 framing charge against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Section 25A and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short NDPS Act).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that no recovery was made from the Petitioner. The Petitioner was neither inside the vehicle from which recovery was made nor was he present at the scene of occurrence. The Petitioner has not even been named in the FIR. Further no role has been assigned to him. Statement of Constable Vijay Kumar in this regard has been recorded who has stated that from the personal search of the Petitioner nothing has been recovered. The Petitioner has been sought to be implicated on the strength of telephone calls between the Petitioner and the co-accused. However in the absence of any recorded conversation it cannot be said that the Petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with the co-accused. Similarly situated Milap Singh has not been made an accused. Moreover, co-accused Pyare Lal has been discharged. The evidence placed on record is not sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the Petitioner. Reliance is placed on Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 366 to contend that the Court has the power to shift and weigh the evidence and only in case if the material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the Court would be justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. Relying on Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545 it is contended that the order framing charge does substantially affect the person's liberty and it is not possible to countenance the view that the Court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecution by relying on certain documents considers it proper to institute the case. LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner further states that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace.

(3.) INDUBITABLY no charge can be framed against an accused merely on the basis of the confessional statements of the accused or co-accuseds. However, in the present case the telephone call details shows that accused Santokh Singh and Satpal Singh were in constant touch with each other and Amarjit Singh. Accused Sampat Singh and Pyare Lal have been discharged for the reason that no role was assigned to them and there was no evidence against them. Though Petitioner has not been named in the FIR however his name has surfaced during the disclosure of the co-accused pursuant to which the call details were verified which shows that the two were together.