1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 62/2008 Veerbhadram s/o Vankyanna Gugglot Age about 37 years, Occ-Agriculturist, R/o Dharamaram, Dist. Warangal (AP) (At present in Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur) APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Kanhan Police Station, Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur. RESPONDENT .... Mr. R. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Applicant.. Mr. S.J. Jichkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT :02/05/2008. DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT : 06/05/2008. JUDGMENT : 1] Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Jichkar, learned A. P.P. for respondent. 2] Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2 3] By this revision application, the applicant, who is accused no.1, in Special Criminal Case No. 70/2006 takes exception to the order dated 13th March, 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Court, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No. 70/2006 dismissing the application for discharge filed by the applicant. 4] The respondent filed charge-sheet under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 22, 29 and 8 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (“the Act” for short) against the applicant and other accused. 5] On 1.1.2006 truck bearing registration no. AP-12 T- 5153 was found in abundant condition near Nirma Company within jurisdiction of Kanhan Police Station. Upon inspection of the truck 67 gunny bags of Ganja weighing 2522 Kgs and 102 gunny bags of coconuts were found. The truck and the material were seized under panchanama. In the said truck one chit was found in the cabin mentioning the names, their addresses and mobile numbers of three persons. The applicant was one of them. In the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested and he made inculpatory statement. 3 After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused. 6] As stated above, the accused sought discharge which has been refused by learned Special Judge, Nagpur. 7] Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to implicate the accused in the commission of offences. According to Mr. Tiwari, no prima facie case is made out for framing charge against the applicant under the provisions of the NDPS Act. 8] Mr. Jichkar, learned A. P. P. submitted that except for inculpatory statement of the accused and the said chit found in the cabin of the vehicle, there is no other material available on record to implicate the applicant in the commission of the offences under the Act. 9] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent and perused the records. 10] Except inculpatory statement made by the accused and chit mentioning the names, addresses and mobile 4 numbers of three persons including the applicant, there is no absolutely no other material against the applicant. Insofar as inculpatory statement made by the applicant is concerned, obviously the same cannot be used against the accused even for the purpose of framing of charge. Insofar as the chit found in the cabin of the truck is concerned, the same, by itself, is not sufficient even, prima facie, to connect the applicant with the commission of offences under the Act. I, therefore, find that there is absolutely no material which even prima facie connects the applicant with the commission of offences under the Act. It is to be noted that the learned Special Judge except saying that there is material against the applicant has not mentioned the material available on record against the applicant. Although the Special Judge was not required to give an elaborate order at the stage of framing of charge, the least that was expected that the Judge was to mention the material on record which connects the applicant with the offences alleged against him. The learned Special Judge has acted illegally in not making reference to the material on record and also in not discharging the applicant of the offences in respect 5 of which the applicant sought discharge. 11] For the reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The applicant is discharged of all the offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. Consequently, rule is made absolute. Needless to mention that the applicant, who is in jail in the present case, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required, in any other case. JUDGE