Conspiracy charge needs independent support, and morphine is treated as a manufactured drug under narcotics law, not a psychotropic substance.

A co-accused's statement, by itself and without independent supporting material, cannot sustain a conspiracy charge at the stage of framing charge; the conspiracy allegation was therefore not maintainable. On the narcotics issue, the materials disclosed a prima facie case of possession of a book containing morphine, and morphine was treated as an opium derivative falling within section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act rather than section 22, which applies to scheduled psychotropic substances. The presumption under section 54 also supported the need for an explanation of possession. The matter was confined to framing of charge under section 21 only.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge of conspiracy could be founded on the statement of a co-accused at the stage of framing of charge. (ii) Whether, on the facts disclosed, the offence was made out under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and not under section 22 of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the charge of conspiracy could be founded on the statement of a co-accused at the stage of framing of charge.

Analysis: A statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot, by itself, furnish the basis for framing a charge of conspiracy. In the absence of independent material supporting the allegation, the trial court could not rely only on that statement to sustain the conspiracy charge.

Conclusion: The conspiracy charge was not sustainable against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts disclosed, the offence was made out under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and not under section 22 of that Act.

Analysis: The materials showed that the book containing morphine was being handled by both accused, giving rise at least to a prima facie case of possession. At the stage of charge, the court is required to examine whether the record discloses a ground for presuming the offence. Morphine was treated as an opium derivative and therefore as a manufactured drug within section 21, while section 22 applies to psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule, which did not include morphine. The presumption under section 54 also supported the need for the accused to explain possession.

Conclusion: The proper charge was under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and not under section 22 of that Act.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part, the conspiracy and section 22 charge were quashed, and the matter was confined to framing of charge under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act only.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-accused's statement, without independent support, cannot sustain a conspiracy charge at the stage of framing charge, and morphine is to be treated as a manufactured drug covered by section 21 rather than as a psychotropic substance under section 22.

---