NDPS charge framing cannot rest on Section 67 statements when binding precedent bars their evidentiary use.

At the charge-framing stage, Section 67 statements could not sustain additional charges under Sections 27A and 29A of the NDPS Act where no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered and the reliance on those statements was contrary to Tofan Singh. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the direction to frame charges for those offences, while leaving the existing charges under Sections 9A and 25 undisturbed. The ruling confirms that charge framing must rest on legally admissible material and cannot be expanded for more serious offences on the basis of statements whose evidentiary use is barred by binding precedent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing framing of charges under Sections 27A and 29A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered from the appellants and the High Court had relied on statements under Section 67 of the Act.

Analysis: The appellants were proceeded against on the basis of an alleged recovery of acetic anhydride, a controlled substance, from their premises, while no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered from them. The High Court's reliance on statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was found to be inconsistent with the law declared in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The existing framing of charges under Sections 9A and 25 was not under challenge, but the further direction to frame charges under Sections 27A and 29A was examined on its own merits.

Conclusion: The direction to frame charges against the appellants under Sections 27A and 29A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was set aside, while the charges under Sections 9A and 25 were left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appellants obtained relief against the impugned charge-framing order to the extent of the more serious offences, and the remaining charge order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing of charges, reliance on Section 67 statements cannot sustain charges where the legal basis for those statements is excluded by binding precedent and the material does not justify the additional offence alleged.

---