Rahul Kushwaha vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the court must determine if a prima facie case is made out, meaning if the material discloses a grave suspicion against the accused that is not properly explained. The Court found that the petitioner's involvement was not solely based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible against others. Crucially, GST invoices seized during the investigation, issued in the name of the petitioner's firm "Secret Pharma," demonstrated his role as a seller of the contraband. The Court noted that the petitioner was also facing other NDPS cases. Therefore, there was sufficient material to presume the petitioner's involvement in a criminal conspiracy related to the possession of a commercial quantity of contraband, as contemplated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The Court concluded that charges could not be said to have been framed without any basis, and the petitioner's involvement was prima facie established through evidence beyond just co-accused statements. The revision petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rahul Kushwaha, filed a criminal revision challenging the order framing charges against him under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that on May 4, 2021, police received information about the storage and transportation of a large quantity of Onrex Cough Syrup containing Codeine Phosphate. During a search, 4320 bottles of the syrup, valued at Rs. 5,18,400/-, were seized. Investigations revealed that the petitioner, through his firm "Secret Pharma," had sold this cough syrup to Divyansh Traders. The petitioner argued that no contraband was seized from his possession and he held a valid license to sell drugs. The State contended that sufficient evidence, including GST invoices, indicated the petitioner's involvement in supplying the contraband.

Key Issues

1. Whether there exists a prima facie case for framing charges against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, specifically concerning Sections 8(C), 21(C), 27(b), and 29, considering the material on record and the petitioner's contention of possessing a valid drug license and no direct seizure from his possession? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no contraband was seized from his direct possession, and he possessed a valid license to sell drugs and medicines, thus negating the requirement for his arrest or prosecution. He contended that the framing of charges was erroneous as it failed to consider these aspects. He relied on Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors, arguing that at the charge framing stage, if no offense is made out, the accused should be discharged. State's arguments: The State countered that the petitioner supplied the contraband, which contained Codeine Phosphate, and possessed a license for retail sale. They presented GST invoices as evidence of the petitioner's involvement and noted his facing other NDPS cases. The State argued that the trial court had sufficient prima facie material to frame charges and that the court only needs to ascertain if there is a grave suspicion against the accused at this stage.