Jitendra @ Jeetu Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Jitendra @ Jeetu Sahu, was intercepted by the police at a bus stand with two cartons containing 239 bottles of 'rexon' cough syrup. The police had received information that these cartons were being transported by the applicant, who is the son of the owner of a registered medical shop. Upon interception, the applicant allegedly stated he possessed the syrup without a bill. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The trial court, however, framed charges under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The applicant challenged this framing of charge by filing a revision petition before the High Court, arguing that he had produced purchase bills, including GST invoices, for the seized cough syrup, and that his father's medical shop license should be considered. The State contended that at the time of interception, the applicant admitted to not having a license or bill, and the ownership of the medical store was a matter of evidence.

Held

The High Court held that at the stage of framing charges, it is not required to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously analyze the evidence. The court's role is to ascertain if there is prima facie material on record to constitute an offence. The applicant's submission that he produced bills and invoices during the investigation could not be accepted as these were not mentioned in the charge sheet. The bills filed along with the revision petition were considered as evidence to be produced before the trial court at an appropriate stage. The court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Amit Kapoor, Manendra Prasad Tiwari, State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., Mohan Lal, and Ghulam Hassan Beigh, emphasizing that interference at the charge framing stage is only in rare cases where the allegations are absurd or the basic ingredients of an offence are not satisfied. In this case, the prosecution's case, supported by the FSL report confirming Codeine and Triprolidine (scheduled drugs) in the seized syrup and the applicant's alleged admission of not having a license or bill, presented a prima facie case. Therefore, the framing of charge was not found to be bad in law or without material. The court explicitly stated that its observations were only for deciding the revision and would not bear on the merits of the case during trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned trial court erred in framing charges against the applicant under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, overlooking the purchase bills and GST invoices for the seized cough syrup, thereby failing to apply judicious mind to the material on record? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 21(b) and 21(c) of the NDPS Act, and principles of charge framing). Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant argued that the trial court failed to consider the purchase bills and GST invoices, which demonstrated the lawful acquisition of the seized cough syrup. He contended that since his father owned a registered medical shop, the drugs were intended for legitimate business purposes. The framing of charge under Section 21(c) was thus erroneous and lacked judicious application of mind to the available documents. Respondent's (State's) Arguments: - The State argued that at the time of interception, the applicant admitted to not possessing any license or bill for the cough syrup. It was further contended that the applicant's claim regarding his father's license and ownership of the medical store is a matter of evidence to be decided during the trial, and not at the stage of charge framing. The court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage.