1 Satish Kumar Sharma @ Rinku & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan S.B.Cri. Revision Petition No.415/2008 Date of Order : 17.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.Vineet Jain for Mr.Sandeep Mehta for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhyaya , Public Prosecutor. The instant revision petition is filed by the accused petitioners against order of charge framed against the accused petitioner Satish Kumar Sharma @ Rinku for the offence under section 8/29 and 8/27-A of the NDPS Act and against the accused petitioner Vinesh Kumar @ Sonu for the offence under section 8/29, 8/25 and 8/27 -A of the NDPS Act by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.68/2007 State vs. Joga Singh & Ors. The main allegation against the present accused petitioners is that they were alleged to be associated withaccused Joga Singh. After investigation, challan was filed against the present petitioners along with Joga Singh and 2 respective charges were framed vide order dated 17.04.08. Against that the present revision petition has been filed. During the course of arguments, the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners are that they have been falsely implicated in this case, there was no material to indulge these accused persons. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners relied on the judgments in Suresh Budharmal Kalani vs. State of Maharashtra [1998 SCC (Cri.) 1625], Akram Khan vs. The State of Rajasthan [SB Cri. Rev. Petition No.280/2005] and Kailash Lohar vs. The State of Rajasthan [SB Cri. Rev.Petition No.781/2008] and stated that the charge framed against the accused are not sustainable. It was further submitted that mainly charge has been framed on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused Joga Singh and it was urged that the statement of the co-accused Joga Singh is not relevant for framing the charge. Thus, a prayer was made to allow this revision and quash the order of framing charge. On the contrary learned Public Prosecutor refuted the contention and submitted that the present petitioners are also 3 involved in this case and there are material against the present accused and charges were rightly framed. It was also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that in this case, after framing of the charge the statement of some prosecution witness have been recorded and in these factual position the present revision is not tenable and a prayer was made to dismiss the revision petition, without going into the merit of the case. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. I have also considered the material available on record as well as the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the order it seems that learned trial court has considered the other material available on record. The learned court has also taken into consideration the material which came out during investigation from these accused petitioners. In this way, the contention of the accused petitioner that the charges are solely based on the statement of the co -accused, is not sustainable. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do 4 not help his contention, as they were based merely on the statement of co-accused and the statement given by the accused during interrogation. Further, from the perusal of the record, it reveals that evidence of some important witnesses have been recorded. In these circumstances, the present revision is not sustainable. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision is dismissed. The learned trial court will not be influenced by any observation made in this order and will proceed to expedite the case. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george