Viral Patel vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The Chhattisgarh High Court heard two criminal revision petitions filed by Viral Patel and Akash Vishwakarma. Both applicants challenged a charge-framing order dated April 5, 2023, by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur. The police received information about drug dealing, leading to the interception of several individuals. During searches, significant quantities of Alprazolam tablets and Tramadol SPAS-MO capsules were seized from various co-accused. The applicants were arrested based on their alleged involvement in supplying these drugs. The applicants claimed they were licensed medicine dealers and possessed documents (bills, invoices, GST documents) proving their legitimate purchase and sale of the seized drugs, arguing no offense was made out. The State contended that the applicants could not produce satisfactory documents for the seized quantities after receiving notices under the NDPS Act and that their memorandum statements connected them to the illegal drug trade.

Held

The Court held that at the stage of framing charges, it is not required to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously examine the evidence. The Court's role is to determine if a prima facie case is made out. The Court noted that the applicants, despite being licensed dealers, failed to produce satisfactory documents for the seized quantities even after receiving notices under the NDPS Act. The memorandum statements of the applicants and co-accused indicated a chain of illegal transfer of drugs. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa and Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, emphasizing that charges can be framed if the court believes the accused might have committed the offense and that the allegations are not patently absurd or inherently improbable. The Court found that there was prima facie material available in the charge-sheet for proceeding against the applicants and that the framing of charges was neither bad in law nor an abuse of process. The Court dismissed the criminal revisions but clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the revision against the charge-framing order and would not affect the merits of the case during the trial. The applicants were granted liberty to raise all available grounds during the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the framing of charges under Section 29 read with Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) against the applicants, who claim to be licensed medicine dealers with supporting purchase and sale documents, is legally sustainable, considering the allegations of supplying large quantities of psychotropic substances? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that they are licensed dealers of medicines, including Tramadol SPAS-MO and Alprazolam, and possess all necessary bills, invoices, and GST documents to prove their legitimate transactions. They contended that the learned trial court erred by not considering these documents and erroneously framed charges under Sections 29 and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. State's Arguments: The State argued that the applicants were connected through a chain of persons involved in the crime and had sold unaccounted drugs in huge quantities. It was contended that the applicants failed to produce satisfactory documents of purchase and sale for the seized quantities after receiving notices under Sections 22(c), 27-A, 29, and 67 of the NDPS Act. The State also referred to memorandum statements indicating the applicants sold drugs at higher costs and used forged names for transportation.