Uttarakhand High Court
Rahul Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 26 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8754
RESERVED JUDGMENT
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2020
Rahul Chaudhary. ......Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another. .....Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/
respondent no.1.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for N.C.B. with Mr. Rajesh Sharma,
Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent no.2.
Reserved on : 18.09.2025
Delivered on : 26.09.2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been filed
impugning the judgment & order dated 12.12.2019
rendered by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Act,
Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial No.26 of 2014,
whereby learned trial Court had proceeded to frame
charges against the revisionist under Sections 9-A, 25-A,
26 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, as well as Sections 420 and 467 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. According to the revisionist, he is one of the
Directors of M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd., a
company duly incorporated in February 2006, along with
2025:UHC:8754
Late Shri Anuj Singh, Shri Kirpal Singh, and Shri Gaurav
Ahlawat. The said company is engaged in the
manufacturing and distribution of over 400
pharmaceutical formulations throughout the territory of
India. The revisionist was primarily entrusted with the
management and supervision of the marketing operations
of the company. Further, the revisionist was appointed as
an Additional Director in another pharmaceutical
concern, namely, M/s Alto Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., where he
was similarly charged with the responsibility of overseeing
marketing activities. It is stated that M/s Francis
Remedies India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the production of a
wide range of pharmaceutical formulations, including
tablets, dry powder injections, injectable solutions,
syrups, ointments, and capsules. The company operates
under a valid manufacturing license issued by the Drug
Controller, Uttarakhand, and possesses an approved list
of drugs/products duly authorized by the Drug Controller
for the purposes of manufacturing and distribution.
According to the revisionist, on 28.12.2011, the NOC, Sub
Zone, Dehradun received an intimation from the NOC,
Zone, Lucknow, alleging that M/s Francis Remedies India
Pvt. Ltd., Roorkee, District Haridwar, had illicitly exported
Pseudo Ephedrine to Mexico. The communication
directed the Sub Zone office to initiate a thorough inquiry
into the alleged contravention. Pursuant thereto, the NOC,
Sub Zone, Dehradun undertook a detailed investigation
into the matter at its level. During the course of the
investigation, it was ascertained that M/s Francis
Remedies Pvt. Ltd., in conjunction with several other
entities, had engaged in multiple commercial
transactions. An examination of the available sale and
2025:UHC:8754
stock registers disclosed a total of forty-two transactions
executed between the said companies. To verify the
details, notices were issued under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act to 11 firms with whom the firm of the revisionist used
to deal in order to collect their statements and relevant
documents. The director of M/s Francis Remedies Pvt.
Ltd. was asked to present all documents relating to
business transactions with these 11 firms. The
investigation concluded that these 11 companies were
involved in selling medicines allegedly containing Pseudo
Ephedrine and Ephedrine and all related documents such
as bills, purchase orders, and stock registers were found
to be skillfully fabricated. In reality, the companies did
not receive or sell the Pseudo Ephedrine or Ephedrine
products they claimed to have handled. During the
course of the investigation, it was discerned that M/s
Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd. had failed to prepare the
RCS Order 1993, Form No. 5, and Form No. 2, in the
manner prescribed under the statutory provisions. In the
course of the inquiry, a notice was issued to the accused,
Shri Gaurav Ahlawat, Director of M/s Francis Remedies
India Pvt. Ltd., directing him to appear before the
Investigating Officer and furnish a statement disclosing
the accurate facts. Notwithstanding the same, the
accused evaded appearance and failed to disclose the
correct facts to the investigator. Consequent to the
investigation, it was concluded that the accused-Gaurav
Ahlawat had unlawfully sold 98 kilograms of
Pseudoephedrine and 231 kilograms of Ephedrine, both
being scheduled controlled substances through
clandestine channels, without valid documentation. The
act constituted illicit trafficking, resulting in the accrual of
2025:UHC:8754
unlawful financial gains, thereby amounting to a serious
contravention of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Subsequently,
summons were duly issued to the revisionist, who
appeared before the Intelligence Officer on 12.12.2013,
and was apprehended on the same date. Thereafter, the
revisionist preferred an application under Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Special
Judge (NDPS) Act, Dehradun, seeking discharge, which
application was, however, rejected by the Court vide order
dated 12.12.2019. It is against the said order that the
present Criminal Revision has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
M/s Francis Remedies India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the
production of various pharmaceutical formulations,
including tablets, dry powder injections, injectable
solutions, syrups, ointments, and capsules; that the
company operates under a valid manufacturing license
issued by the Drug Controller, Uttarakhand, and holds an
approved list of drugs/products authorized by the Drug
Controller for manufacturing purposes; that the
revisionist was neither in-charge of the day-to-day affairs
of the company nor involved in the manufacture, sale,
distribution, transportation, or possession of any
controlled substance; that the revisionist was only
responsible for the marketing of the products and was
concerned with the registered office of the company, not
with the manufacturing centres or factories; that the
revisionist had no role whatsoever in the diversion, if any,
of controlled substances and had absolutely no knowledge
of such diversion, since he was not involved in the
2025:UHC:8754
manufacturing activity of the company; that the
prosecution has failed to establish that the revisionist was
in-charge of the company at the time of the alleged offence
or that he was responsible for the conduct of its business,
as required under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940 and Section 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Learned
counsel for the revisionist submits that the aforesaid
provision ordains that when an offence is committed by a
company, every person, who at the time of the offence was
in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the
business, shall be deemed guilty along with the company
and that if the accused proves that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised
due diligence to prevent its commission, he cannot be
held liable. He submits that the prosecution has not
provided any evidence to prove the revisionist's direct
involvement or responsibility, which is a fundamental flaw
in their case; that the revisionist cannot be held
vicariously liable for the alleged offence of the company,
inasmuch as, merely being a Director, is not sufficient to
establish guilt and there must be a prima facie evidence
showing that the person was in-charge of and responsible
for the day-to-day operations of the company. In order to
buttress his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court rendered in the case of co-accused
Kirpal Singh in Criminal Misc. Application No.198 of
2014, decided on 20.11.2019., whereby entire proceedings
of S.S.T. No.26 of 2014, qua the applicant-Kripal Singh,
were quashed by this Court and the Court observed that
the responsibility for the company's affairs lay with Late
Shri Anuj Singh. Learned counsel for the revisionist
2025:UHC:8754
submits that the aforesaid observation reinforces the
revisionist's claim that vicarious liability falls only upon
the individual actually managing the company's daily
operations. Learned counsel for the revisionist arged that
the revisionist should not have been charged under the
NDPS Act, inasmuch as, he was not personally involved in
the alleged offence, which was instead the responsibility of
co-accused, namely, Gaurav Ahlawat. Furthermore, the
charges against him are unsupported by evidence, and
the prosecution has failed to properly allege or prove his
direct involvement in the offence.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the prosecution has provided sufficient
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused; that the
revisionist's application, in its attempt to evade
culpability, has raised baseless, vague, and evasive
arguments; that the evidence collected during the
investigation and the material presented before the Court
is sufficient for the framing of charges against the
accused; that the revisionist-Rahul Chaudhary has
voluntary given statement before the Intelligence Officer
on 12.12.2013, in which he admitted that, being the
Director of Francis Remedies (I) Pvt. Ltd. and being
responsible for the sales, marketing, and other activities
of the company, he is jointly responsible for all the
activities. He also confessed that there was non-
compliance of the RCS Order, 1993, under the NDPS Act,
1985. Learned counsel for the respondent further
submits that the revisionist admitted that fake invoices
and purchase orders were prepared to facilitate the
diversion of a controlled substance, specifically pseudo-
2025:UHC:8754
ephedrine and this admission along with the results of the
inquiry and his subsequent arrest, forms a strong basis
for the prosecution's case and proves his direct
involvement in the illegal activities. He submits that the
submission made on behalf of the revisionist that the
revisionist was merely a Director of Sales and that his
involvement was limited are false, inasmuch as, the
revisionist, by his own admission, was a key person
responsible for the company's business activities; that, as
per Section 34 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and
analogous provisions in the NDPS Act, a person in-charge
of and responsible for the company's business at the time
of the offense, is also liable. Learned counsel for the
respondent emphasizes that the revisionist, as the
Director of Sales, had a legal duty to ensure that the
Stock Register (Form 2 as per RCS Order 1993) was
properly maintained to prevent the diversion of controlled
substances and the accused has failed to account for a
huge quantity of a controlled substance, which was
illegally diverted and this failure to maintain proper
records is a direct violation of the RCS Order, 1993.
Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended
that the case of the prosecution does not rest upon the
principle of vicarious liability, but rather upon the direct
and active culpability of the accused. It has been urged
that the submissions advanced on behalf of the revisionist
are nothing but a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the
factual matrix and mislead this Court by portraying his
role as minimal or peripheral. The material brought on
record unequivocally demonstrates that the diversion of
the controlled substance was not a mere inadvertent act,
but the outcome of a meticulously orchestrated criminal
2025:UHC:8754
conspiracy, wherein the revisionist occupied a pivotal and
indispensable position. Learned counsel for the
respondent has further submitted that the plea advanced
in the present Criminal Revision, seeking quashment of
charges on the ground of parity with co-accused Kripal
Singh, is wholly misconceived and devoid of substance. It
is contended that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while
passing the order in the case of co-accused Kripal Singh,
has already rendered a categorical finding, specifically
distinguishing the case of the revisionist from that of the
said co-accused. In view thereof, the present plea, being
not only untenable in law but is also barred by the
principle of estoppel and cannot be reagitated in the garb
of the present revision. Learned counsel for the
respondent has further submitted that the prosecution
possesses cogent and credible evidence to establish that
the accused deliberately suppressed and concealed the
factum of his position as Director of Sales; while, in
reality, he misused the manufacturing licence to
effectuate the diversion of controlled substances for the
purposes of illicit trafficking. Such conduct, it is urged,
amounts to a direct infraction of the statutory mandate
and attracts penal consequences under Sections 25A and
29 read with Section 9A of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that the prosecution is
armed with ample, cogent, and admissible evidence to
establish that the accused deliberately suppressed and
misrepresented the material fact of his designation as
Director of Sales. In reality, he had clandestinely
misappropriated and misused the manufacturing licence
to facilitate the unlawful diversion of controlled
2025:UHC:8754
substances into the channels of illicit trafficking and
smuggling. Learned counsel for the respondent further
submitted that the contentions advanced by the
revisionist are not only factually and legally untenable but
also manifestly intended to impede and frustrate the due
course of the judicial process. The material on record,
including the revisionist's own admissions and the
detailed findings returned by the Investigating Officer,
conclusively establish his culpability. In light thereof, the
framing of charges against the revisionist is both legally
justified and is in consonance with the settled principles
of criminal jurisprudence.
5. Before proceeding to the final determination, it
is important to reiterate the settled legal position
regarding the scope of interference at the stage of framing
of charges. It is well established that, at this stage, the
Court is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence
or evaluate the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court has to see only whether a prima facie case is
made out against the accused. The test is whether the
material on record, if unrebutted, is sufficient to presume
that the accused has committed an offence.
6. In the case of "State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh
Singh", reported in (1977) 4 SCC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has elucidated that, at the stage of framing of
charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the
Court's function is limited to a prima facie examination of
whether there exists a strong suspicion or sufficient
ground to believe that the accused may have committed
the alleged offense, based on the material on record,
2025:UHC:8754
including prosecution evidence and submissions of the
parties, without assessing the credibility or effect of such
evidence; while the presumption of innocence is
acknowledged, the test is not guilt beyond reasonable
doubt but whether there is a legal basis to proceed to
trial, and the final determination of guilt or innocence can
only occur after full trial, thereby ensuring a balance
between individual liberty and the prosecution's right to
adjudicate its case.
7. Similarly, in the case of "Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander & another", reported in (2012) 9 SCC
460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the limited
scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and
482 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that such powers should
be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross errors,
non-compliance with legal provisions, or arbitrary exercise
of judicial discretion. The Court held that, at the stage of
framing charges, the trial Court is not required to
meticulously examine the evidence or determine whether
the case would end in conviction; instead, it should
ascertain whether there is a ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offense. The High Court
should not unduly interfere with the trial Court's decision
unless there is a manifest error of law or jurisdiction. The
judgment underscores the principle that quashing of
charges is an exception and should not be resorted to
routinely.
8. In the case in hand, the material collected
during the course of investigation, including the voluntary
statement of the revisionist recorded under Section 67 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
2025:UHC:8754
1985, coupled with the allegations pertaining to diversion
of controlled substances, fabrication of invoices, and non-
compliance with the RCS Order, 1993, unmistakably give
rise to a grave and substantial suspicion regarding the
revisionist's involvement in the offences alleged. It is
manifest that such materials, in the absence of any
rebuttal, suffice to constitute a prima facie case
warranting the continuation of proceedings, thereby
justifying the framing of charges and the initiation of trial
in accordance with the statutory and judicially recognized
principles governing criminal jurisprudence.
9. The contention advanced by learned counsel for
the revisionist that revisionist's responsibility was
confined solely to marketing activities, without
involvement in the day-to-day management of the
company, therefore, the charge of diversion of controlled
substance could not be made against him, this Court,
after perusing the record and also the order of framing of
charge, finds that, in the investigation, it has come out
that the revisionist have violated the RCS Order, 1993,
prepared false invoices of medicines of controlled
substance, which were never supplied to the recipient
parties. Therefore, after investigation, prima facie, case
against the revisionist is made out. The contention made
on behalf of the revisionist is essentially a matter of
defence, which is liable to be tested and adjudicated only
at the stage of trial, upon appreciation of the full evidence.
Likewise, the submission regarding parity with co-accused
Kripal Singh is devoid of merit, as the factual role ascribed
to the present revisionist is distinct, independent, and
2025:UHC:8754
materially different, a position which has already been
noted and affirmed in the earlier proceedings.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & another Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation", reported in (2018) 16
SCC 299, delineated the scope of interference by the High
Courts at the stage of framing of charge and laid down
binding directions regarding the effect and duration of
stay orders granted in such matters. The Court held that
if High Courts, at the stage of charge, engage in re-
appreciation of evidence or weighing of probabilities, it
inevitably obstructs the legislative policy of ensuring
expeditious trials. The stage of charge is confined to a
prima facie consideration of material, it is not intended for
detailed adjudication. Unwarranted interference delays
trials and frustrates the mandate of Article 21
guaranteeing speedy justice. The Court clarified that an
order framing charge is neither purely interlocutory nor a
final order. Thus, the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 397 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., or Article 227 of
the Constitution is not barred. However, such jurisdiction
is to be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare
cases, to correct patent errors of jurisdiction or manifest
illegality, and not to reassess the merits of the material.
11. At this juncture, this Court is neither required
nor would be justified in undertaking a detailed scrutiny
of the evidence or recording a finding on the substantive
merits of the allegations. The scope of discharge under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. is inherently narrow, and having
considered the material on record, this Court finds that
2025:UHC:8754
the trial Court was justified in framing charges against
the revisionist under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as the
Indian Penal Code, and no interference in the framing of
charges is warranted.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a
meticulous scrutiny of the record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated
12.12.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS
Act), Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2014, does not
suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity
warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction
of this Court. The conclusions arrived at by the trial
Court are founded upon a judicious appraisal of the
evidence on record and are manifestly well reasoned and
is in consonance with law. In view of the settled legal
position enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the judgments cited hereinabove, this Court will
not be justified in taking a divergent or contrary view to
that of the trial Court, particularly when the findings are
based upon a careful and proper appreciation of the
evidence.
13. Consequently, having regard to the foregoing
discussion and in view of the settled legal position as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that
the Criminal Revision is wholly devoid of any merit. There
exists no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned
order of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dehradun.
2025:UHC:8754
Consequently, the Criminal Revision fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
26.09.2025
BS
