Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 16: High Court has quashed the order of the trial court whereby charges under Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act have been framed against the petitioner with the direction for continuing trial for other offences.
The order has been passed in a petition filed by Hardeep Singh, who along with Darwara Ram is facing trial in the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 29 of the Act arising out of the FIR bearing No. 82/2020 registered with Police Station, Gangyal. They were arrested by the police along with heroin.
The trial court vide order dated 23.11.2020 framed the charges against the accused including the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 29 of the Act. The petitioner prayed before the High Court for quashing of the charges on the ground trial court has merely presumed the offence of criminal conspiracy against the petitioner without there being any material against the petitioner or any allegation of overt act on the part of the petitioner.
After hearing Advocate Deepak Mahajan for the petitioner and AAG Aseem Sawhney for the UT of J&K, Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed, “while considering the issue of framing charge/discharge of the accused, the trial court has to form opinion on the basis of material placed on record by the Investigating Officer as to whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not”.
“At this stage, the trial court cannot indulge in critical evaluation of the evidence as can be done at the time of final appreciation of evidence after the conclusion of trial but the charge can be framed against the accused even when there is strong suspicion about the commission of offence by the accused”, High Court said, adding “at the same time the trial court is not expected to merely act as post office and frame the charge just because challan for the commission of a particular offence has been filed against the accused”.
“A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the trial court has observed that none of the prosecution witness has stated that they hatched a criminal conspiracy between them and abetted each other or invested money in furtherance of common intention together to do this illegal act. More so it is not the case of the prosecution that there was joint possession of the contraband”, High Court said, adding “it seems that the trial court framed the charges under Section 29 of the Act just because FIR has been registered under Section 29 of the Act”.
Similarly, in the instant case both the accused have committed offence individually as recovery has been effected from both the accused in a vehicle so Section 25 of the Act has no applicability in the instant case.
With these observations, High Court quashed the trial court order to the extent of framing of charge under Sections 29 and 25 of the Act. The High Court also enlarged the applicant on bail subject to the furnishing of two local solvent sureties to the tune of Rs 50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court along with personal bond of the same amount.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel