MUKUND PUROHIT Vs. UNION OF INDIA (NCB)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these revision petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 02/2015 directing framing of charge against the accused petitioner Dinesh Vaishnav for the offences under Sections 8/20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and against the accused Mukund Purohit for the offences under Sections 8/20 read with Section 29 and 8/20 read with Section 30 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that admittedly, no contraband was recovered from the personal possession or control of the present petitioners. Thus, as per them, the trial Judge was totally unjustified in framing charge against the accused for the offences under Section 8/20 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. They submit that evidently, the trial Judge has framed charge against the accused for these offences owing to inadvertence and thus, the accused petitioners be given liberty to move an application before the trial court under Section 216 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking alteration in the charge and the trial court be directed to consider and decide such application as per law.

(3.) Shri M.R. Pareek, counsel representing the NCB, does not dispute the submission that no contraband was recovered from the personal possession or control of the present petitioners. Nonetheless, as per him, possession of contraband is not sine-qua-non for framing charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. However, he does not object to the prayer made on behalf of the accused petitioners for seeking alteration of charge by filing an appropriate application before the trial court.