Court rules vague allegations and inadmissible confessional statements insufficient to frame charge under Sections 8 and 29 of NDPS Act
In a significant judgment delivered on September 28, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Farjand Ali, acquitted Bheru Lal from charges framed under Sections 8 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court set aside the order of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh, which had earlier framed charges against the petitioner, stating that the prosecution's material was insufficient to establish even a prima facie case of abetment or criminal conspiracy.
The petitioner, Bheru Lal, was implicated based predominantly on statements made by co-accused persons Rameshwar and Kalu under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and a subsequent statement attributed to him under the same provision. These statements suggested that he "cooperated" with the principal accused in narcotic trafficking. However, the Court found that such a vague allegation, without specific details regarding the nature of cooperation or any overt act, failed to satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment or conspiracy under Section 29.
Notably, the Court underscored the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), which clarified that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be treated as confessional statements for convicting an accused. Since the petitioner's implication rested mainly on such statements and there was no independent evidence linking him to the narcotic activities-no contraband was recovered from him, nor was he present at the site of seizure-the Court held that these statements alone could not sustain the charge.
The prosecution's attempt to rely on the recovery of ₹68,500 from the petitioner's possession was also dismissed. The Court observed that possession of cash, without an independent factual nexus to narcotic trafficking, could not be construed as evidence of abetment or conspiracy. The prosecution failed to establish how the money was proceeds of narcotics or directly connected to the alleged offence. The petitioner's alleged statement that the money was intended as a bribe to narcotics officials was considered insufficient to meet the legal threshold for framing charges.
Justice Farjand Ali emphasized that while a court at the charge framing stage does not conduct a full trial, it must still ensure that the material discloses the essential elements of the offence and raises a grave suspicion against the accused. Mere conjecture or vague suspicion is inadequate. The Court noted that the statutory provisions require specific factual substratum to infer abetment or criminal conspiracy, which was missing in this case.
Consequently, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition, quashed the charges against Bheru Lal, and ordered his discharge. The judgment clarified that this ruling applies solely to the petitioner and does not prejudice the prosecution's case against other accused persons. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the remaining accused strictly on the merits.
This judgment reinforces the principle that charge framing must be based on clear, legally admissible evidence and that mere association or vague allegations do not suffice to implicate an accused under the NDPS Act. It also reiterates the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court on the inadmissibility of Section 67 statements as confessions, thereby safeguarding the rights of accused persons during preliminary stages of criminal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Framing of charge under Section 8/29 - Mere vague allegation that accused "cooperated" with principal accused, without any specific overt act, transaction, recovery, or independent material showing abetment or criminal conspiracy, is insufficient to frame charge - Statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act cannot, in view of Tofan Singh, furnish substantive basis for implicating accused - Recovery of cash, without nexus to narcotic offence, does not by itself establish offence under Section 29.
Statutory provision(s):
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8, 29, 67; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 227, 228; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 25
Bheru Lal v. Union of India, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991146
