MANOHAR SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR CUS AND C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner amongst others was arrested in connection with the offence under the N. D. P. S. Act (for short the Act ). The case came up for framing of the charge before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 8-2-1996 framed the charge against the petitioner for committing the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come in revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the Union of India.

(3.) THE argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence against the petitioner by which a charge can be framed and the prosecution case as it is does not show iota of guilt of the petitioner. He has produced at Annexures P-3 to P-5 the statements of the accused persons in this case Annexure P-3 is the statement of accused Palvinder Singh Randhawa. Annexure P-4 is the statement of excused Rabinder Singh Tomar and annexure P-5 is the statement of accused Vijay Dev Kohli.