JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. The 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 petitioner has come in revision.
2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the Union of India.
3. The maintainability of this revision is not under challenge and, therefore, I do not go into the question which is well settled.
4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence against the petitioner by which a charge can be framed and the prosecution case as it is does not show iota of guilt of the petitioner. He has produced at Annexures P-3 to P-5 the statements of the accused persons in this case Annexure P-3 is the statement of accused Palvinder Singh Randhawa. Annexure P-4 is the statement of excused Rabinder Singh Tomar and annexure P-5 is the statement of accused Vijay Dev Kohli.
Crl. Rev. 119/1996
5. The learned Advocate 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 be given on the merits thereof by this Court at the time of framing of the charge. However, Section 67 of the Act itself does not show how the statements of the co-accused can be treated as an evidence for convicting the petitioner.
6. Leaving this question apart, it will be proper to see whether the statements of the co-accused go to show prima facie that the petitioner can be charged for the offences. The petitioner has reproduced relevant part of the statements in para 3 of the petition. In his statement, Palvinder Singh Randhawa has stated that Manohar Singh presently is running business of sales and purchase of imported and local cars in the name and style of M/s. Car junction., Chandigarh. He has also stated that on his arrival at Chandigarh, he was received by Manohar Singh. On 10-5-1995, 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 question put to accused Rabinder Singh Tomar, he has stated that in his opinion, Manohar Singh of Chandigarh was to receive the seized heroin.
9. In the statement of accused Vijay Dev Kohli, it is mentioned that the other accused were talking that if Manohar Singh is contacted on reaching at Chandigarh, then the goods will be delivered within 15 minutes. To contact Manohar Singh, Palvinder Singh stopped at Ambala and tried to contact him on phone and Palvinder Singh returned as he informed R. S. Tomar that partner contacted and we would call him from the hotel and deliver the goods to him. He also contacted Rabinder Singh Tomar and told that Manohar Singh could not be contacted and there could be a problem in the delivery of the goods.
10. The other accused were apprehended with the car containing 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. Hence, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, Annexure P-1 and the charge-sheet, Annexure P-2, so far as they relate to petitioner Manohar Singh are quashed and the petitioner is discharged.