SANJAY Vs. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dtd. 2/2/2019 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 1/2019, by which the charges were framed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Ss. 8/20, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel that the accused-petitioners have been arrested in this case alleging that their involvement has been disclosed by the co-accused during the course of investigation. The petitioners have been arrested and charge-sheet has been filed against them on the sole basis of alleged disclosure of the co-accused. Legally, this disclosure is not admissible and cannot be made basis for any prosecution in view of Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The complaint in the present case is not sustainable qua the petitioners. The petitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of inadmissible evidence. They have been arrested after the recovery of contraband in this matter, therefore, there is no connecting evidence on record against the petitioners. No case is made out against the petitioners for the offence under Ss. 8/29 of the NDPS Act because except interrogation of co-accused, no other evidence is available on record and it is settled law that no charge can be framed on the basis of police interrogation as the same is hit by Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioners were not present at the alleged place of incident. No recovery has been made from their conscious possession. The only evidence available against them on record is the confessional statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in law without any supporting corroborative evidence. The charges have been framed in a routine manner. Statement recorded under Sec. 67 of NDPS Act is not admissible as per the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 under Sec. 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the duty of trial Court to sift and weigh the evidence to find out prima facie ground to frame charges against the accused but the trial Court has framed the charges without taking into consideration the fact that whether any sufficient material is available on record for coming to prima facie conclusion that there are grounds to frame charges against the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-