High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. Admit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the co-accused Vipin Kumar was held by the police while carrying the illegal drugs in his vehicle who introduced him as delivery boy of Flipkart but on search illegal drugs were retrieved from his possession by the police and he named the present accused / revisionist as the mastermind of the whole conspiracy and he also disclosed before the police that the conversation for the aforesaid transportation of drugs was available on whatsapp. On the aforesaid confession, the present revisionist was also named by the police. The police further enquired into the matter and whatsapp chat between accused Vipin Kumar and the present revisionist and one Rinku Chaudhary was obtained by the police from the mobile of accused Vipin Kumar who also disclosed the mobile number of the present revisionist. However the said number was found in the name of one Priyanka Ved. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the said Priyanka Ved has not been arrayed as an accused in the instant matter by the police. On further enquiry the police also found that the paytm and amazon account of the present revisionist was linked with the mobile number of Priyanka Ved and also connected with the IndusInd Bank of the present revisionist. It is further submitted that during investigation four other buyers of drugs were also interrogated by the police but nothing was retrieved to prove the involvement of the present revisionist in the alleged delivery of drugs nor any evidence in respect of payment of money to the present revisionist by the alleged buyers was proved by the police. The present revisionist has absolutely no concern with the alleged offence and no evidence has been collected by the police against him during investigation and only on the basis of confessional statement of accused Vipin Kumar he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements on record in support of his contention. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary manner and the impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

7. The parameters for framing of charge and discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out against the accused or not. A co-joint reading of the judicial pronouncements passed in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 clarifies that the Court at the stage of framing of chage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed .

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused revisionist was the kingpin of the drugs trafficking. As per the record of the case although the mobile number which was disclosed by the co-accused Vipin Kumar was found in the name of one Priyanka Ved but the said mobile number was connected with the revisionist's account of IndusInd Bank for UPI payment. Though it has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the alleged bank account which was searched out by the police does not contain any transaction in favour of the present revisionist but it is notable that no denial has been made by the revisionist to the fact that the aforesaid account does not belong to him. On search of the co- accused drugs in sufficient quantity have been retrieved by the police. Sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the revisionist during investigation for his active participation in the offence which prima facie shows that the present revisionist was actively involved in commission of the present offence. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are prima facie not made out and the record further shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. Admit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the co-accused Vipin Kumar was held by the police while carrying the illegal drugs in his vehicle who introduced him as delivery boy of Flipkart but on search illegal drugs were retrieved from his possession by the police and he named the present accused / revisionist as the mastermind of the whole conspiracy and he also disclosed before the police that the conversation for the aforesaid transportation of drugs was available on whatsapp. On the aforesaid confession, the present revisionist was also named by the police. The police further enquired into the matter and whatsapp chat between accused Vipin Kumar and the present revisionist and one Rinku Chaudhary was obtained by the police from the mobile of accused Vipin Kumar who also disclosed the mobile number of the present revisionist. However the said number was found in the name of one Priyanka Ved. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the said Priyanka Ved has not been arrayed as an accused in the instant matter by the police. On further enquiry the police also found that the paytm and amazon account of the present revisionist was linked with the mobile number of Priyanka Ved and also connected with the IndusInd Bank of the present revisionist. It is further submitted that during investigation four other buyers of drugs were also interrogated by the police but nothing was retrieved to prove the involvement of the present revisionist in the alleged delivery of drugs nor any evidence in respect of payment of money to the present revisionist by the alleged buyers was proved by the police. The present revisionist has absolutely no concern with the alleged offence and no evidence has been collected by the police against him during investigation and only on the basis of confessional statement of accused Vipin Kumar he has been falsely implicated in this matter. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements on record in support of his contention. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary manner and the impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

7. The parameters for framing of charge and discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out against the accused or not. A co-joint reading of the judicial pronouncements passed in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 clarifies that the Court at the stage of framing of chage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed .

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused revisionist was the kingpin of the drugs trafficking. As per the record of the case although the mobile number which was disclosed by the co-accused Vipin Kumar was found in the name of one Priyanka Ved but the said mobile number was connected with the revisionist's account of IndusInd Bank for UPI payment. Though it has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the alleged bank account which was searched out by the police does not contain any transaction in favour of the present revisionist but it is notable that no denial has been made by the revisionist to the fact that the aforesaid account does not belong to him. On search of the co- accused drugs in sufficient quantity have been retrieved by the police. Sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the revisionist during investigation for his active participation in the offence which prima facie shows that the present revisionist was actively involved in commission of the present offence. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are prima facie not made out and the record further shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad