Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj @ Bablu Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 CRR-2888-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2888 of 2024
(MANOJ @ BABLU CHOUHAN
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Appearance:
(SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA SHRIVAS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPLICANT) .
(SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.05.2024 passed
in Special/NDPS/Case No. 09/2024 by Special Judge (NDPS), District Ratlam
(M.P.) whereby charges under Sections 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") have been framed
against the applicant.
2. The prosecution story in short is that on 10.03.2024, an information was
received from the informant that one person wearing chocolate colored T-Shirt
will arrive from Khachrod to Dmart carrying MD in his hand. The Police party
went to the spot and they found a person named Jafar carrying one mobile
phone and a plastic bag containing the alleged contraband in his left pocket.
The applicant abjured his guilt. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, applicant filed
this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
implicated as an accused on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused.
He has nothing to do with the commission of offence. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
orders passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court in CRR No.2324/2022
(Anil Patel Vs. State of M.P.) dated 08.02.2023 passed, M.Cr.R
No.14443/2023 (Bhajan @ Bhajanlal @ Bhajanram Vs. State of M.P.) dated
15.09.2023 and CRR No.1789/2020 (Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) dated
14.08.2020. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020
SC 5592, Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujrat and another
reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547 and Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar
reported in AIR 1966 SC 119.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is
2 CRR-2888-2024
sufficient evidence available on record against the present applicant.
5. On considering the quantity of contraband seized from the accused, prima
facie, ingredients of offences alleged against the applicant are available. The
learned trial court has not committed any error in framing charges against the
present applicant at the stage of framing of charges. Detail appreciation of
evidence is not permissible and mere strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the
charge.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference
is called for in a well reasoned order passed by the trial Court. At the time of
framing of charges only a prima facie case is required to be seen. There is
sufficient material available on record against the present applicant. Therefore,
the charges which are framed against the present applicant does not call for any
interference in the present criminal revision which is being filed seeking
quashment of charges. These are the matter of trial to be considered by leading
appropriate evidence before the learned trial Court.
8. Under these circumstances, no case for quashment of framing of charges is
made out against the present applicant.
9. Accordingly criminal revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order
is to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
V. JUDGE
akanksha
