1996 (8) TMI 337 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Framing of charges under the N.D.P.S. Act based on co-accused statements
- Admissibility of co-accused statements as evidence
- Lack of evidence implicating the petitioner in the alleged offence
- Revision of the charges and discharge of the petitioner

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court pertains to the framing of charges against the petitioner under the N.D.P.S. Act based on statements of co-accused individuals. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the offence under the Act, and the Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner for committing offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act. The petitioner challenged this decision through a revision petition before the High Court.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence against the petitioner to justify framing charges. The counsel contended that the statements of the co-accused, presented as evidence, were not admissible as they did not establish the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner's lawyer produced statements of the accused individuals, including Palvinder Singh Randhawa, Rabinder Singh Tomar, and Vijay Dev Kohli, to support this argument.

The High Court analyzed the statements of the co-accused individuals to determine if they provided prima facie evidence to charge the petitioner. The statements indicated that the co-accused were involved in discussions and activities related to the alleged offence, but there was no direct implication of the petitioner in the incident. The court noted the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to abetment or criminal conspiracy, despite the actions of the other accused individuals.

Based on the lack of substantial evidence implicating the petitioner and the insufficiency of the co-accused statements to establish the petitioner's involvement, the High Court allowed the revision petition. Consequently, the court quashed the order of the Sessions Judge framing charges against the petitioner under the N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner, namely Manohar Singh, was discharged from the case, leading to the resolution of the legal proceedings against him.