Framing of charge in NDPS cases requires only a probable basis, not trial-level proof, and the charge was upheld.

At the pre-trial stage in an NDPS prosecution, discharge or quashing is not warranted where the record creates a reasonable basis to believe the accused may have committed the offence. The Court held that, for framing charge, it is not necessary to assess evidence as at trial; it is enough if the materials make the offence a probable consequence. The prosecution material, including the alleged role in the export chain, the fictitious consignor and consignee, the link with the clearing agency, and identification material collected during investigation, was sufficient to proceed. The photograph-based identification could be considered at the investigative stage, though substantive proof would arise only at trial. The order framing charge under Section 29 read with Section 23 NDPS Act was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to discharge or quashing at the pre-trial stage in a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and whether the materials collected during further investigation were sufficient to justify framing of charge under Section 29 read with Section 23 of that Act.

Analysis: At the stage of framing charge, the court is not required to weigh the probative value of the evidence as if conducting a trial. If the materials on record make the commission of the offence a probable consequence, or create a reasonable basis to think that the accused might have committed the offence, a charge can be framed. The materials relied on by the prosecution, including the alleged role of the appellant in the export chain, the fictitious nature of the consignor and consignee, the alleged link with the clearing agency, and the identification material collected during investigation, were sufficient to justify proceeding to trial. The plea based on the absence of sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not pursued. The court also held that the photograph-based identification material could be considered at the investigative stage, though substantive proof would arise only from in-court identification.

Conclusion: The plea for discharge failed, and the order directing the appellant to face trial under Section 29 read with Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was upheld.

---