(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.187/2007.. (State of Rajasthan Vs. Radhey Shyam) DATE OF ORDER : April 24, 2007 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas ___________________________________ Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. for the petitioner State. Mr. Sachin Acharya for non-petitioner. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the State has challenged the order dated 16.02.2005 whereby the learned trial Court discharged the non-petitioner from the charge levelled against him for offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. According to facts of the case, on 04.04.2004, at about 6.55 P.M., S.H.O., Police Station Kotdi stopped jeep No.RJ/06 – T – 0247, which was being driven by one Insaf Mohammed, and search was made. At that time, two persons who were sitting in (2) the said jeep ran away. However, upon search of the vehicle, 125 kg of poppy husk was recovered from the vehicle. Case was accordingly registered and, after investigation, challan was filed against Insaf Mohammed. Since non-petitioner Radhey Shyam was absconding, therefore, investigation against him was pending. After his arrest, investigation was completed and challan was also filed against him. The learned trial Court, after hearing arguments, discharged the non-petitioner Radhey Shyam by the impugned order. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner State that the order passed by the trial Court for discharging non-petitioner Radhey Shyam is erroneous. He contends that there is sufficient material against the non-petitioner on record for framing charge against him. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner supported the order under challenge and vehemently contended that no evidence is there on record for framing charge against Radhey Shyam. It is submitted that according to investigation no identification parade was made nor any person gave any evidence with regard to identifying non-petitioner Radhey Shaym on the spot. It is contended by learned counsel for the non- petitioner that challan has been filed only on the ground that the main accused Insaf Mohammed from whom the poppy husk was recovered stated that out of the two persons who ran away one was Radhey Shyam. (3) Learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that the evidence of the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner and there is no other evidence to connect the non-petitioner with the alleged offence. The learned trial Court after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Balu Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 (1) U.J. 269 (SC), discharged the non-petitioner observing that the main accused Insaf Mohammed who was caught red-handed has already been acquitted after due trial and only on the basis of statement made by him challan has been filed against the non-petitioner which is not permissible under the law. I have carefully perused the judgment impugned and considered the matter in its entirety. I do not find any sufficient ground to upset the finding arrived at by the trial Court upon consideration of the material on record. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the case. The revision petition is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.