-1- Criminal Revision No.2282 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.2282 of 2003. Date of Decision: January 25, 2010. Makhan Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Makhan Singh, Gajjan Singh and Malook Singh, who have been charged under Section 29 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the Act') for abetting Mohinder Kaur (co- accused of the petitioners), who was found in possession of 3.85 -2- Criminal Revision No.2282 of 2003. kilograms of opium, or being a party to the conspiracy, have filed this revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code') praying for setting aside of the said charge sheet and their discharge in the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The police, after investigation of the case, submitting report under Section 173 of the Code forwarding the petitioners under Section 29 read with Section 18 of the Act. The trial Court, at the time of framing charge for the said offence against the petitioners, considered the material before it and finding prima facie evidence against the petitioners drew the aforesaid charge sheet against the petitioners. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the trial Judge did not do proper judicial scrutiny of the documents produced by the prosecution before framing the charges. The petitioners are at liberty to take all the pleas available to them before the trial Court during trial. I do not find any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. January 25, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE