TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the same was also dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is as follows: - Accused No.1 owns 10 acres of coconut grove where he runs a resort in the name and style "Agrinest" (without approval from the Government). Accused No.2 manages the same along with others like accused Nos.3 and 15. Accused Nos.11 and 12 arranged for conducting a music fest in the said resort and also for supplying narcotic substances to the participants during the programme. Accused No.14 was brought from Russia to attract youngsters to the programme. Accused No.1 went to Kerala and purchased 200 grams of cannabis besides bringing drinks from other states from unknown persons and brought all such items to the resorts on 03.05.2019. In the night of 03.05.2019, a large group of youngsters from Tamil Nadu and Kerala thronged there to participate in the music programme. During the programme narcotic substances were given to Accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 9 & 13 and they consumed the same. Accused Nos.15, 8 and 10 also consumed the same and abetted commission of offences like supply of narcotics. In connection with the said incident, FIR No.129/2019 was registered on 04.05.2019 and in the said FIR, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him." 6. While considering the scope of Section 227, Cr.P.C. in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2010 ) 9 SCC 368; 2010 INSC 624, this Court laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under: - "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned. 8. Bearing in mind the position(s) of law laid down as above in the matter of exercise of power under Section 227, Cr.P.C., we will consider the question whether the dismissal of the application for discharge filed by the appellant in CC No.43 of 2020 calls for interference in view of the nature of the charge framed against him and the materials on record to support the same. 9. As noted earlier, the accusation against the appellant is commission of offence punishable under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. The said Section, in so far as it is relevant, reads thus: - "27. Punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. - Whoever, consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be punishable, - (a) ....... (b) whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is be the position, the question is whether the two Courts were justified in holding that there is prima facie case against the appellant to proceed against him. In this contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. ( 2019 ) 16 SCC 547; 2019 INSC 568 Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said decision are relevant for the purpose of this case and they read thus: - "23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a fullfledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out....