Alam Khan vs The State of Rajasthan

Nisha Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dt. 8.6.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg District Bharatpur whereby charges have been framed for the offence under Sec. 29 and in alternative Section 8/ 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner to charge him under Sec. 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. No recovery has been made from him. No statement under Sec. 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been recorded. There is no link evidence and hence he should be discharged from the offence. Reliance has been placed on Kishan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cril.L.J. 3947 where it has been held that to establish the charge of abetment and conspiracy under Sec. 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the prosecution must adduce some independent, corroborative or affirmative legal evidence.

Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that conspiracy hatched in the secrecy and no direct evidence can be adduced to prove a charge for conspiracy. It can be inferred only from the circumstance and at the stage of framing of the charges, the Court will no go into the niceties of the evidence and looking to the totality of the circumstances, charges have been rightly framed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

The allegation against the present petitioner is that co-accused from whom the contraband has been recovered has stated that they have to deliver the said contraband to the present petitioner. The contention of the present petitioner is that no link evidence has been obtained to connect him with the crime and the statement of the co-accused cannot be relied.

It is true that the statement of the co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence but the investigation is still pending against the co-accused who is registered owner of the vehicle and from whom the contraband has been received. Specific allegation on the spot at the first hand was that it has been taken to deliver it to the present petitioner. At the stage of framing of the charge, a grave suspicion can be made the basis of the charge and no minute scrutiny of evidence is needed. Hence the trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the present petitioner for the offence under Sec. 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

It is true that charge under Sec. 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be made out against the present petitioner as he is not the owner or occupier of the vehicle from which the contraband has been recovered. Hence the present petitioner is liable to be discharged from the charge under Sec. 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

The further contention of the present petitioner is that investigation is pending under Sec. 173(8), Cr.P.C. against other accused persons Hukam Singh and Suresh Kumar, till then the proceedings before the trial Court should be stayed. There is no reason to stay the proceedings when the present petitioner and the other accused persons have already been charged for the particular offence. In view of the above facts, the revision petition is partly allowed and the present petitioner is discharged from the offence under Sec. 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.