KHANSHER Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') is filed against the order dated 30/07/2019 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mandsaur in Special S.T. No.36/2018, whereby charges for offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been framed against the applicant- Khansher.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on 18/07/2018, on the basis of secret information police recovered 30 Kgs. of poppy straw from the possession of the co-accused persons namely, Nainaram and Rekharam. Thereafter, police arrested them and recorded their statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in which they disclosed that they procured the alleged contraband from the present applicant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record by impugned order framed the charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against the applicant. The aforesaid order is a subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that acquisition against the applicant is solely based on the disclosure statement said to have been made by co-accused persons namely, Nainram and Rekharam recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act can be used only if a fact is discovered on the basis of such statement. It is contended that in the present case no fact, as such, has been discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The information given by co-accused persons namely, Nainram and Rekharam regarding the applicant involvement in the present crime hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Apart from the information given by co-accused persons namely, Nainram and Rekharam, there is no other evidence available on record against the present applicant to connect him with the alleged offence. Hence, trial Court has committed grave error of law in framing the charge for the offence under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act vide impugned order. Therefore, prosecution against the applicant is liable to be quashed.