V.G. Palshikar, J. - (1.) The revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Sriganganagar framing charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Secs. 8/15 and 29 NDPC Act, 1987. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assails the order on the ground that except the fact that the jeep given by the one of the petitioners and accupied by the other petitioners was running ahead of the truck from which the contraband articles were seized, there is no nexus between the petitioners and the alleged possession of contraband in the allowing truck and therefore, there is no substance on the basis of which charge can be framed.
(2.) Record and proceeding of this case were called and have been perused by me. In first information report as also in the statement of the Station House Officer, it is stated by him that the jeep was escorting the truck containing 201 bags of contraband. The fact that the truck contained such heavy load of contraband and that the jeep was going ahead of it is enough to raise grave suspicion of involvement of these persons in transporting of the contraband without licence. Existence of grave suspicion is also found by the Supreme Court of India to lay or frame charges on the basis of which the accused can be tried. The accused will have all the opportunities to cross examine the evidence that may come and ultimately they may be required to be acquitted for lack of evidence that in itself is no reason to interfere with the order of framing charges.
(3.) Hence, the revision fails and is dismissed.;