ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J.
1. This petition is directed against framing of the charge of entering into a conspiracy to illegally acquire and possess 83.770 kg. of heroine in contravention of Section 8 read with Section 29 and Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, on specific intelligence, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted one truck. No. MP-23-B-3469 at Sindhu Petrol Pump, Adarsh Nagar near Jahangirpuri Bus Stand, New Delhi. One Ghanshyam Chandravansi was apprehended with the truck. During the course of interrogation, photographs of some of the smugglers from the dossiers of the smugglers available with DRI were shown to DRI Ghanshyam Chandravansi. From his voluntary statement recorded in Section 67 of the NDPS Act it is apparent that he identified one of the photographs, as photograph of the Sardar who met him at the petrol pump for receiving/collecting his goods. That was photograph of Shri Jaswant Kumar alias Billa s/o Mehar Chand r/o Village Gharinda, Distt. Amritsar who was already involved in a case of 44 kg. of heroine effected by Punjab Police, Amritsar. On 8th January 1998, during his presence in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, summons were sought to be served on him under NDPS Act for recording his evidence in the seizure of 83 kg. of herioine. But instead of receiving the summons, he approached the Court for cancelling his bail in the case of 44 kg. of heroine in order to avoid investigation in the case of 83 kg. of heroine. He was bailed out of 17th January, 1998. Summons were issued to him to appear before the DRI on 19th February, 1998 and deny his involvement in the case of 83 kg. of heroine seized at New Delhi on 23rd September, 1996.
3. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order of charge based on a ground of suspicion of identification of his photograph by Shri Ghanshyam Chandravansi.
4. It is claimed by the applicant that virtually, the charge is ground-less. There is no evidence at all and charge should be set aside.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted that cognizance of the offence had already been taken which meant that prima facie case exists against the accused/applicant. Unless this charge has been rightly framed, the question of discharging the petitioner does not arise.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. From the statement of Ghanshyam Chandravansi, it appears that the accused/applicant himself told him that certain goods were handed over to Chamkaur Singh at Amritsar and he was to receive that article at Delhi at the place where the truck was standing. Ghanshyam described his age as 35 years, had trimmed beard and was speaking Punjabi. It is also evident that he identified the photograph of creates at strong suspicion against him. If on the basis of the above evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge drew the inference that the accused/applicant was involved in transporting heroine from one State to another; she was not wrong in framing charge for offence u/s. 8(c) read with Section 29 and Section 21 of NDPS Act. Seeing the deposition, it also appears that there is basis for strong suspicion of there being conspiracy to transport heroine against the applicant. Accordingly, the charge had to be framed for entering into conspiracy with Chamkaur Singh to illegally acquire; possess and transport 83.77 kg. of heroine in contravention of provisions of NDPS Act. Consequently, the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8th May, 1998 is not groundless to strike down the charge and to release the accused.
7. Accordingly, I do not find any force in this petition and dismiss the same.