9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner amongst others was arrested in connection with the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act (for short the Act). The case came up for framing of the charge before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 8-2-1996 framed the charge against the petitioner for committing the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner has further argued that statements of the co-accused cannot be treated as an evidence. The learned Session Judge had observed that the question as to what value is to be attached to the statement which have been recorded under Section 67 of the Act will have to be gone into once these are proved by the official before whom these were made at the time of trial and no opinion can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-1995, they did not have a detailed discussion. On 11-5-1995, they discussed a lot about their business and on the same date, he returned to Delhi by train. 7. It is further stated by the said accused that he again came to Chandigarh on 19-5-1995 and tried to contact Manohar Singh to tell him about his arrival and there was no response either at his residence or his office. 8. In the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the narcotic articles. The petitioner Manohar Singh was not present at that time. Even if the statements of the above-co-accused are to be taken into consideration, they do not go to show that the petitioner had taken any part in the incident. There is no evidence regarding his being abetment and criminal conspiracy. 11. When this is the position, this revision deserves to be allowed. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
