Tej Singh Mewari ......Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

allegedly recovered. On the basis of the recovery memo, FIR No. 176 of 2022 was registered under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act.

3. During the investigation, the statements of the said accused persons were recorded, wherein they allegedly disclosed that the recovered contraband had been procured from the present Revisionist. The Criminal Revision No. 557 of 2025------Tej Singh Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another- 1 Ashish Naithani J. Investigating Officer thereafter obtained Call Detail Records of the co- accused and the Revisionist, which, according to the State, indicated telephonic contact between them around the relevant period.

4. On that basis, the Revisionist was arrested and subsequently charge- sheeted for the offence of conspiracy and abetment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

5. After submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge on 22.04.2024. Upon hearing the parties on the question of charge, the learned trial court, by the impugned order dated

17.06.2025, framed charge against the Revisionist under Section 29 read with Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act, leading to the present revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the Revisionist assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Revisionist has been implicated solely on the basis of statements of co-accused and Call Detail Records, without any recovery from him or independent corroborative material. It was urged that mere telephonic contact does not constitute conspiracy and that the learned trial court failed to apply its judicial mind while framing the charge.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required only to see whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists, and not to weigh the sufficiency or admissibility of evidence. According to the State, the material collected during investigation is sufficient to proceed against the Revisionist for the offence alleged. Criminal Revision No. 557 of 2025------Tej Singh Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. This Court, upon due consideration, proceeds to observe that the parameters governing interference at the stage of framing of charge are well settled. At this stage, the Court does not conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence, nor does it evaluate the probative value thereof. The test is whether the material placed on record, if taken at its face value, discloses the existence of a prima facie case or gives rise to grave suspicion against the accused.

10. In the present case, it is true that no recovery has been affected from the Revisionist and that he was not named in the FIR. However, that by itself is not determinative at the stage of charge. The charge against the Revisionist is not of physical possession but of conspiracy and abetment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which, by its very nature, is often sought to be established through circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused.

11. The material collected during investigation includes statements of the co-accused, wherein they have specifically attributed the source of the recovered contraband to the Revisionist, as well as Call Detail Records indicating communication between the Revisionist and the co-accused around the time of the incident. Whether such material ultimately proves the charge is a matter to be tested during trial.

12. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to examine whether the prosecution will succeed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the material on record, taken as it stands, discloses a nexus between the accused and the alleged offence so as to justify a full-fledged trial.

13. The contention that mere telephonic contact cannot constitute conspiracy is essentially a defence plea, the veracity and weight of Criminal Revision No. 557 of 2025------Tej Singh Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another- 3 Ashish Naithani J. which can be adjudicated only after evidence is led. At this stage, the existence of communication between the Revisionist and the co- accused, coupled with the disclosure statements forming part of the State’s record, cannot be brushed aside as wholly irrelevant or innocuous.

14. The learned trial court, while framing the charge, has recorded its satisfaction that the material on record gives rise to a prima facie case against the Revisionist for the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. This Court does not find that the said satisfaction suffers from perversity, illegality or non-application of mind warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

15. It must be borne in mind that the revisional power is a supervisory jurisdiction and not an appellate one. Interference at the stage of framing of charge is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the order impugned is patently illegal or results in a miscarriage of justice. The present case does not fall within that narrow category.

16. The arguments advanced on behalf of the Revisionist essentially invite this Court to undertake a deeper evaluation of the evidentiary worth of the prosecution material, which is impermissible at this stage and would amount to conducting a mini-trial.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Udham Singh Nagar. ORDER The present Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 557 of 2025------Tej Singh Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another- 4 Ashish Naithani J. The order dated 17.06.2025 framing charge against Revisionist in Special Sessions Trial No. 348 of 2024 is upheld. Dated:20.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Revision No. 557 of 2025------Tej Singh Mewari Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another- 5 Ashish Naithani J.