Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedBheru Lal v. Union of India, through NCB
2026:RJ-JD:47203
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 284/2024
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 28 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 29, 53, 57, 67; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 227, 228, 397, 401; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 25
Final Outcome
Revision allowed. The order of 6 December 2023 framing the charge was set aside so far as it concerns the petitioner, who was discharged from the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The observations do not prejudice the case against the other accused (paras 22-23).
Key holdings
- Section 29 of the NDPS Act is not attracted by mere association, relationship or acquaintance with the principal accused (para 5).
- An allegation that the accused ‘cooperated’, without the nature, manner or occasion of that cooperation, cannot supply the ingredients of abetment or conspiracy (paras 7-8).
- After Tofan Singh, Section 67 statements of co-accused cannot be used as confessions to sustain a charge (paras 9-10, 12).
- Cash recovered from the accused, without a demonstrable nexus with the narcotic offence, is not prima facie material of abetment or conspiracy (paras 14, 16).
- The stringency of the NDPS Act does not lower the threshold of judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charge (para 20).
Brief Facts
On 15 February 2023, a Central Narcotics Bureau team searched premises in village Chaktiya, Chittorgarh connected with Rameshwar, Kalu and their brothers and allegedly recovered opium, poppy husk and tablets (para 3). After the two were arrested, the petitioner, a distant brother-in-law of Rameshwar, came to meet them. On the basis of their statements he was summoned under Section 67, allegedly admitted assisting their trade, and was arrested. ₹68,500 was allegedly found on him; the prosecution said it was meant for the narcotics officials, to secure some relaxation for Rameshwar (para 3). The Special Judge, NDPS Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh framed a charge under Section 8/29 on 6 December 2023, which he challenged in revision (paras 1, 3).
Court's Findings
Relying on Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, the Court said that at the charge stage it may sift the material to see whether the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, without conducting a mini-trial (paras 4, 18). Section 29 is not attracted by association or relationship; there must be material of abetment or criminal conspiracy (para 5). The Section 57 report said only that the petitioner had ‘cooperated’ with the accused, without any act, transaction, date, place, quantity or communication attributed to him (paras 6-8). Applying Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that the co-accused’s Section 67 statements cannot be used as confessions or supply the missing ingredients (paras 9-10, 12). The Investigating Officer had admitted that the petitioner was not at the place of recovery, nothing was recovered from him and no independent evidence connected him (para 11). The ₹68,500, and the alleged intention to obtain favourable treatment for Rameshwar, showed no nexus with trafficking; conspiracy cannot be inferred from one hypothesis built on another (paras 13-16). The stringency of the NDPS Act does not lower the threshold of scrutiny (para 20).
Legal Principle
At the stage of framing charge, Section 29 of the NDPS Act requires prima facie material of abetment or criminal conspiracy, not mere association. Section 67 statements of co-accused cannot be treated as confessions to supply that material, and a vague allegation of ‘cooperation’ without any overt act cannot justify a trial (paras 5, 8, 12, 21).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4
At the stage of framing charge under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC the court may sift the material for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists; described as 'the governing exposition'.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1
A statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in an NDPS trial; officers invested with powers under Section 53 are 'police officers' for Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Applied to keep the co-accused's Section 67 statements out of consideration at the charge stage.
