MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE instant revision petition under Section 397 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of the Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Court, Chittorgarh framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/29 of the N. D. P. S. Act.
(2.) IT appears that on 26. 3. 2003 on receiving information from informer the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, arranged a trap on the high way between Ajolia ka Kheda and Rathore Dharamkanta. The Police intercepted a truck bearing No. RJ-19-G- 3459. On search the Police recovered 9. 450 Kg. brownsugar. The occupanth of the truck namely Shiv Narain, Bahadur Khan, Ganesh and Shamarath were arrested on the spot. During investigation it reveal that the seized brownsugar was to be delivered to Mohd. Fazrin through the petitioner Mohd. Firoz. The Police also collected the evidence to the effect that the cariers of the brownsugar were in contact with the petitioner Mohd. Firoz on mobile. After usual investigation Police laid charge-sheet against Shir Narain, Bahadur Khan, Ganesh and Shamarath for offence under Section 8/21 and 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act. As against Mohd. Fazrin and the petitioner charge-sheet was filed for offence under Section 8/29 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The learned Special Judge found sufficient material on record to charge the petitioner Mohd. Firoz of abating an offence punishable under N. D. P. S. Act as such framed charge for offence under Section 8/29 of the N. D. P. S. Act. It is contended by Mr. V. K. Mathur learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no evidence worth the name for framing the charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/29 of the N. D. P. S. Act. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. There is evidence on record to show that the accused persons found in possession of the brownsugar were carrying the same for delivery to Mohd. Fazrin through the petitioner Mohd. Firoz. They were also in contact with the petitioner Mohd. Firoz on mobile. The proof of abatement of conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain criminal act of the parties, done in pursuance of apparent criminal purpose in common between them. Thus, in a case of conspiracy one can hardly expect direct evidence to establish the charge. In the instant case prima facie the guilt of the petitioner for offence under Section 8/29 can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is well established that the test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. If two views are equally possible and the evidence on record gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused the court would be justified in discharging the accused. However, in a conspiracy case even some suspicious circumstances will be sufficient ground for framing the charge. In my view, there is sufficient material to suspect the involvement of the petitioner in the antinational and most hatred crime. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial court framing the charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/29 N. D. P. S. Act. . ;