Madhya Pradesh High Court
Giriraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19236
1 CRR-4750-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4750 of 2022
GIRIRAJ AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Seema Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri S.S Thakur -G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 r/w section 401 of the
Cr.P.C, 1973 is preferred challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 in
SCNDPS No.51/22 by Additional Special Judge (NSPS Act),
Mandsaur whereby charges under sections 15 (c) r/w section 8 (c)
r/w section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been framed against the
revision petitioners.
2. Facts in brief are that an FIR No.425/2016 was registered
under section 15 r/w section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and section
307 of the IPC and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at PS
Nahargarh, district Mandsaur on 30.09.2016 when vehicle no.RJ-37-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 24-07-2025
19:11:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19236
2 CRR-4750-2022
UA-0688 was apprehended with contraband. A final report was
submitted against Ashok Dangi, Jayakumar @ Babu Kumar Sindhi
and Mukesh Dakad keeping the investigation pending under section
173(8) of the Cr.P.C against the present revision petitioners. The
present revision petitioners were apprehended on 25.08.2022 and
supplementary final report was submitted against them. The trial
court framed the charges and this revision petition is preferred on the
ground that petitioners have been implicated only on the basis of
memorandum of Ashok Dangi recorded under section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is not admissible in evidence.
Except the memorandum of co-accused, there is no material
available against the present petitioners. There is no seizure from
the present petitioners. The essential ingredients of the offence are
lacking in the whole charge sheet. The trial court did not consider
the objections of the petitioners. The revision petitioners have relied
o n Karan Talwar vs. State of Tamil Nadu – 2024 INSC
1012 and Ismail Khan and another vs. State of M.P – LAWS (MPH)
– 2019-5-101.
3. Heard.
4. Counsel for the State has opposed the objections referring
to the statements of Shankarlal Bhil s/o Nanuram, Raju s/o
Bhuvansiram Malviya, Babulal Suryavanshi s/o Bherulal and Vinod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 24-07-2025
19:11:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19236
3 CRR-4750-2022
Suryavanshi s/o Mangilal recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C,
1973 on 28.07.2022 and 02.08.2022.
5. Perused the record.
6. In Karan Talwar (supra) the apex Court has held in para-
12 as under:
12. As noted hereinbefore, the sole material
available against the appellant is the confession statement
of the co-accused viz. accused No.1, which undoubtedly
cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of
trial and against the appellant. When that be the position,
how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to
make the appellant to stand the trial. There can be no
doubt with respect to the position that standing the trial is
an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no
material at all which could be translated into evidence at
the trial stage it would e a miscarriage of justice to make
the person concerned to stand the trial.
7. In the case of Ismail Khan (supra), this Court has held in
para-19 as under:
19. In the present cases also, it is fairly and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 24-07-2025
19:11:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:192364 CRR-4750-2022
unanimously admitted by the learned Public Prosecutors
representing the State in their respective assigned matters
that there is no material except the disclosure made by the
co-accused that they had procured or were going to
deliver the substance recovered from them to the
petitioners. Neither anything was recovered from the
petitioners nor were they found registered owner of the
vehicles carrying the contraband or liquor as the case may
be. There is also nothing on record to get satisfaction that
there is a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant
and other co-accused persons have conspired together to
commit the offence alleged against them. In other words,
there is no prima facie evidence that the petitioners were
party to the conspiracy to the acts done by the other
accused persons. Therefore, the confessional statements
of the co-accused persons cannot be read or be used
against the petitioners. The only piece of evidence
considered sufficient by the Magistrates for taking
cognizance or by the police to file charge sheet against the
petitioners is the mention of their names in the
memorandum of co-accused recorded u/s 27 of the
Evidence Act, which is clearly inadmissible and cannot beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 24-07-2025
19:11:23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:192365 CRR-4750-2022
proved against him.
8. Now we examine the material available on record in this
case. In this case apart from the memorandum of the co-accused Ashok
Dangi, there is statements of Shankarlal Bhil s/o Nanuram, Raju s/o
Bhuvansiram Malviya, Babulal Suryavanshi s/o Bherulal and Vinod
Suryavanshi s/o Mangilal recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C to
the effect that present petitioners were with Mukesh Dakad, Dashrad
Das Bairagi and Narayan singh (now deceased) registered owner of the
vehicle no.RJ-37-UA-0688, Ashok Dangi and petitioners have agreed to
purchase the contraband and Narayansingh agreed to transport the
contraband by his vehicle.
9. The above material taken as true is sufficient to raise “grave
suspicion” for the purpose of justifying framing of charges under
sections 15 (c) r/w section 8 (c) r/w section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Accordingly, the revision petitioners do not succeed on the strength of
Karan Talwar (supra) and Ismail Khan (supra). Hence, this criminal
revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 24-07-2025
19:11:23
[ad_1]
Source link