https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184255 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. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184255 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184255