P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) By the instant revision petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioner has challenged order dated 21.02.2018, passed by Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court') framing charge against him for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to investigation into FIR No.37/2016, registered at Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar, charge-sheet is filed against petitioner for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. Learned trial Court, by the order impugned, framed charge against the petitioner under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.
(3.) It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that at the behest of accused-petitioner, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was submitted for discharging him but the learned trial Court has not considered the said application, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that learned trial Court, while framing charge, has not afforded any opportunity of being heard to the accused-petitioner and even Public Prosecutor was not present when the charges were framed. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the learned trial Court has not even cared to record its prima facie satisfaction about involvement of the petitioner for aforesaid offence much less grave suspicion which is pre-requisite for framing charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. He has, therefore, urged that impugned order is absolutely vague and cryptic, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659] .;