1. No one appeared for the revision petitioner on 24.03.2026, 31.03.2026 and today itself.

In this revision petition, challenging the framing of charges against the revision petitioner under sections 8/15, 25 and 27 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sections 201 and 482 of the IPC arising out of crime no.319/2021 registered at P.S.-Neemuch City, District Neemuch (MP).

2. Prosecution story in brief is that in the intervening night of 8- 9/07/2021 after receiving secret information Police conducted a raid in a godown, situated at Tilak Nagar, Neemuch and around 37 quintal of Poppy Straw from godown as well as from the vehicle pickup bearing registration No.RJ-09-GC-6971, pickup bearing registration No.MP-44-GA-1308, 407 Mini truck bearing registration No.MP-14-GB-1366, pickup bearing registration No.MP-14-GC-0565 along with other vehicles and articles were recovered from the possession of co-accused Gopal, who was chowkidar of the said godown. During investigation when the memorandum of 27 of the co-accused persons were taken and it is alleged that revision petitioner being owner of the aforesaid godown and vehicles was in actual possession of the same and was involved in the crime and thereby was arrested and a case under NDPS Act was registered against him. It is further alleged that the co- accused persons after their arrest were interrogated. During interrogating accused persons in their memo recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act stated that present revision petitioner is been involved in the aforesaid case. On such disclosure, the present revision petitioner was also made accused in the present matter and the matter was put on trial and by impugned order dated 14.12.2022 the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the revision petitioner under sections 8/15, 25 and 27 of the NDPS Act, and sections 201 and 482 of the IPC without considering the material facts of the case and without considering the fact that no material evidence is there to connect the revision petitioner in the present case.

3. The challenge is on the ground that revision petitioner was present where the poppy husk recovery was made and the was not found in the conscious possession of the present revision petitioner. The prosecution has not investigated the matter properly and has falsely implicated the revision petitioner in the present matter. He cannot be made party in the case merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is already an agreement in which it can seen that the godown and the vehicles were already given to the main accused and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the present revision petitioner is involved in the present case. They have relied P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Another reported in Criminal Law Journal 2010 (SC) 1427, PulukuriKottaya Vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 P. C 67, Shakir Chacha V/s. State of MP 2009 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 467 and Idu Khan V/s. Union of India 2013 Cr. L.R. (M.P)

4. Perused the record.

5. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:

          "10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

          "227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

          If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the 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.

          11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."

6. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9 SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under:

          "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

          (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC 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. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

          (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

          (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

          (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

          (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

          (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

          (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."

7. The position of law enunciated in the said decisions reveals that while invoking the power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the judge concerned has to consider only the record of the case and the document produced along with the same. If on such consideration, the Court formed an opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned.

8. The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the discharge application, the impermissibility of mini trial as laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 314 is being referred as under:

          "At the stage of framing of the charge and /or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible."

9. In CBI vs. Aryan Singh -2023 SCC Online SC 379 also, the same position of law has been reiterated. The relevant paragraph from the said judgment is extracted herein below:

          "Para 10 ....As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.

          At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."

10. Now come to the fact of this case, the vehicle involved in the offence bolero pickup bearing registration No.MP-14-GC-0565 is registered in the name of the present revision petitioner and vehicle No.MP-14-MX- 9061 was also registered in the name of present revision petitioner. The call record details collected during the investigation also establishes the contact of the present revision petitioner with the co-accused person. The ground raised by the revision petitioner is a matter of defense and not to be considered at this stage.

11. Testing in the light of above principles, the material collected during the investigation is sufficient for framing of charges against the revision petitioner. Hence this revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.