Prima facie abetment and conspiracy require material linking the accused to the seizure, not mere co-accused statements.

At the stage of framing charge under the NDPS Act, co-accused statements and the material on record were insufficient to disclose prima facie abetment or criminal conspiracy against the petitioner. The record did not show his presence when the other accused were apprehended with the narcotic-laden car, and the statements only suggested that he may have been contacted or expected to receive the goods, without any overt act linking him to the seizure. On that basis, the charge could not be sustained and was quashed, and the petitioner was discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge framed against the petitioner under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained on the basis of the co-accused statements and the material then available, including whether the material disclosed prima facie abetment or criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: The material relied upon did not show that the petitioner was present at the time when the other accused were apprehended with the car containing narcotic articles. The statements of the co-accused, even if taken into account, only indicated that the petitioner might have been contacted or expected to receive the goods, but did not show participation in the incident or any overt act connecting him with the seizure. On that basis, the record did not disclose evidence sufficient to support a charge of abetment or criminal conspiracy against him at the stage of framing of charge.

Conclusion: The charge against the petitioner was unsustainable and was quashed, and the petitioner was discharged.

---