STATE OF HP vs Mudasir Ahmad AND ORS
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
1 2026:HHC:31738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
High Court of H.P.
SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.113 of 2026
Reserved on: 07.07.2026
Decided on: 31.07.2026
Uploaded on: 31.07.2026
State of H.P. …Petitioner
Versus
Mudasir Ahmad and Ors. …..Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,
Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Legal Aid
Counsel, for respondents No.1
& 2.
Ms. Swati Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No.3, 8, 35,
46 & 47.
Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate for
respondents No.4, 27, 31 and
38.
Mr. Abhimanyu Thakur,
Advocate for respondents
No.6, 10, 14, 16, 37, 42 and
45.
Mr. Hari Om Prakash,
Advocate, for respondent No.7.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.9.
Mr. Aditya Chouhan, Advocate
for respondents No.12, 13, 15,
18, 25, 29, 30, 40 and 53.
Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocate
for respondents No.17, 24, 39
and 44.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:31738
Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate
for respondent No.19.
Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate for
respondents No.20, 33, and
41.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate for
respondents No.21, 22 and 41.
Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.22 and 28.
Mr. Rakesh Chauhan,
Advocate for respondent
No.26.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.32.
Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No.43.
Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj,
Advocate, for respondent
No.45.
Ms. Anamika Kohli, Advocate
vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia,
Advocate, for respondent
No.48 and 51.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan,
Advocate, for respondent
No.49.
High Court of H.P.
Virender Singh, Judge
State of Himachal Pradesh has filed the present
criminal revision, against the order dated 21.07.2025,
passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Shimla.
(hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in a trial
No.NDPS ACT/23/2025, arising out of FIR No.50 of 2024,
dated 19.09.2024, registered under Sections 21, 27-A, 29
of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS’), read with Section
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:31738
111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as
High Court of H.P.
the ‘BNS’) with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla,
H.P., titled as State of H.P. versus Mudasir Ahmad Mochi
and others.
2. By of the order dated 21.07.2025, the learned
trial Court has discharged the respondents from the
offences, punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and
Section 111 of BNS.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
present are, hereinafter referred to, in the same
lis,
manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present
criminal revision, before this Court, may be summed up, as
under:-
4.1. That on 18.09.2024, SI Mehar Chand, I.O.
ANTF(FU) CID, along with other police official, left the office
in official vehicle, bearing registration No.HP03C-5663, for
patrolling duty and duty to detect the crime relating to
narcotics, towards Dhalli, Theog, Kotkhai, Jubbal, and
Kharapathar.
4.2. When, the I.O., along with other police official,
was present at a place known as Kharapathar, then, he
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:31738
received a secret information regarding the fact that
High Court of H.P.
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, son of Shri Mohammad Makbool,
village Bhatpura, Post Office Sunitpura, Tehsil Karolpura,
District Kupwara, Jammu and Kashmir, is travelling in a
taxi No.HP01-A-5028, from Shimla to Rohru and he was
having large quantity of Chitta/Heroin with him.
4.3. As per the information, he was going to Rohru,
in order to sell the same to someone and in case, the said
vehicle is intercepted and the bag of Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi is searched, then, large quantity of Chitta could be
recovered.
4.4. The said information was found to be authentic
and reliable. As per the I.O., due to paucity of time, in
case, he would have obtained search warrants, in that
situation, the possibility of removal of the contraband was
there. As such, the I.O. complied with the provisions of
Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and submitted the report to
his superior.
4.5. Thereafter, the I.O. put picketing between
Kotkhai- Kharapathar and contacted Up Pradhan, Gram
Panchayat, Darkoti Ramesh Chauhan on telephone. After
sometime, Ramesh Chauhan and Ravinder Chauhan,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:31738
reached at the spot. They were apprised about the secret
High Court of H.P.
information and associated in the raiding party, as
independent witnesses.
4.6. It has also been mentioned in the status report
that at about 8.55 p.m., as per the information, taxi
No.HP01A-5028, reached on the spot from Kotkhai side.
With the help of police officials, the said vehicle was got
stopped on the side of the road and the driver and the
person, sitting on the rear seat, were apprised about the
secret information.
4.7. On inquiry, the driver disclosed his name as
Deepan Lal and the person, sitting on the rear seat,
disclosed his name as Muddasir Ahmad Mochi. Thereafter,
the bag, which Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was carrying, was
searched, along with vehicle. From the bag, as well as,
from the vehicle, nothing incriminating was found. This
fact, was documented.
4.8. Thereafter, the option, as per Section 50 was
given to the driver, as well as, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi,
upon which, both of them had opted to give their search to
the gazetted police officer. Thereafter, at about 12.20 a.m.,
Dy. S.P. Sidharth Sharma, SDPO, Theog, was requested to
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:31738
come to the spot, upon which, he had reached at the spot
High Court of H.P.
at 1.25 a.m. Meanwhile, Constable Vikrant reached at the
spot along with the receipt of the information, under
Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.
4.9. Thereafter, SDPO had inquired from Deepan Lal
and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and oral direction was given
to SI Mehar Chand to search Muddasir Ahmad Mochi.
During search, from the underwear of accused Muddasir
Ahmad Mochi, a black coloured plastic envelope was
found, which, on opening, was found to be containing
468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin.
4.10. Apart from this, currency notes of Rs.2530/-
and Aadhar Card were also found, which were taken into
possession. In the personal search of Deepan Lal, nothing
incriminating was found. The entire process was
photographed and videographed on the spot. As such
Rukka was sent to the Police Station, for registration of the
FIR, upon which, FIR, in question was registered.
4.11. Thereafter, SI Mehar Chand, submitted the
photocopy of the information, under Section 42(2) of the
NDPS Act, memo regarding personal search of the raiding
party and official vehicle, along with carbon copy, search
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:31738
memo of Taxi No.HP01A-5028 and personal bag, along
High Court of H.P.
with carbon copy, consent memo, under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act, of accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Dipan
Lal, along with carbon copy, memo regarding recovery of
468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin, memo regarding personal
search of driver Deepan Lal, along with carbon copy,
Mobile phone marka ‘Redmi’ of accused Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, by virtue of which, taxi No.HP01A-5028 Alto 800,
along with documents, was taken into possession, along
with carbon copy, photocopy of Rukka, parcel of case
property, containing 468.380 grams of Chitta/Heroin,
along with specimen seal having impression ‘M’, one cloth
parcel containing currency notes of Rs.2530/- along with
specimen seal, zimini No.1, along with carbon copy, NCB-I
form in triplicate, along with carbon copy, Form No.1
duplicate, along with carbon copy, and other documents,
before the Incharge, Police Station, Kotkhai.
4.12. The statements of the witnesses were recorded,
under Section 180 of the BNSS. Thereafter, accused
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi was interrogated and was arrested
on 19.09.2024, at about 2.30 a.m. Thereafter, the case
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:31738
property was deposited with MHC Police Station, Kotkhai
High Court of H.P.
and the accused was medico-legally examined.
4.13. During investigation, the accused disclosed that
he is in the business of selling Chitta/Heroin, as they are
members of interstate gang, along with Shahi Mahatma. He
has further deposed that he, in connivance with Pradeep
Ranta @ Pankaj Ranta, used to bring Chitta from Delhi and
give the same to Shahi Mahatma, whereas, Shahi
Mahatma, through peddlers, used to sell the same in the
Rohru area. Sometimes, peddlers used to take Chitta from
the house of Shahi Mahatma at Pinjore. According to him,
Shahi Mahatma is doing the business from the said
house/room.
4.14. Muddasir Ahmad Mochi has also disclosed that
accused Shahi Mahatma, through mobile phone location
used to sell Chitta to the intended purchaser. Shahi
Mahatma has purchased Sim card, in the name of
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and after using his Aadhar Card
and Pan Card, got opened 2-3 Bank accounts in Kashmir
and used to get money, in those Bank accounts. Accused
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi sometimes through cheques and
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:31738
sometimes through cash used to withdraw the same, and
High Court of H.P.
pay the said amount to Pradeep Ranta.
4.15. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, had also
facilitated the contact of Shahi Mahatma with the
smugglers in Kashmir and they were now planning to bring
Chitta from Kashmir. On 19.09.2024, SDPO, constituted a
SIT by deputing SHO Police Station, Theog as incharge of
the SIT.
4.16. It is the further case of the police, as
mentioned, in the status report, that on 20.09.2024,
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, was produced before the Court of
JMFC Chopal, Camp at Theog, from where, he was
remanded to police custody. Inventory of the case property
was got prepared by producing the same before the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal and
samples were sent to SFSL Junga, whereas, the remaining
case property was deposited with District Malkhana,
Kaithu. On 20.09.2024, SIT incharge, Inspector Jaswant
Singh associated Shahi Mahatma, in the investigation and
he was arrested on 11.50 p.m. on that day.
4.17. During investigation, Shahi Mahatma has
disclosed that from the last 8 months, he is in the business
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:31738
of selling Chitta. Harinder Manta and Pradeep Kumar @
High Court of H.P.
Pankaj Ranta are also involved in the business of
distribution of Chitta and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, is
known to him for the last 5 years and all are in this
business. Accused Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Pradeep
Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, used to purchase Chitta
sometimes from Delhi and sometimes from Karnal, and
hand over the same to him in his room at Pinjore, from
where, Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, used to supply the Chitta
at Rohru. Thereafter, he used to place the Chitta at
different locations and from those locations, he used to
further pass on to Rakesh @ Tinu, resident of Seema
(Badali), Sarthak Sood resident of Rohru, Ravinder (Motta),
Naresh resident of Bijori, Neeraj resident of Melthi and
Ashu (Aate) resident of Rohru.
4.18. The above persons, according to Shahi
Mahatma, after receiving the Chitta from different
locations, used to separate the same in small packets and
sell the same further to other persons. The persons, who
used to purchase Chitta, used to contact him and transfer
the amount in the bank account of Muddasir, which he
had got opened in Srinagar (J&K). According to him, earlier
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:31738
he had used his Dhanlaxmi bank account opened with
High Court of H.P.
Punjab National Bank and now he is using the bank
accounts opened in the name of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi.
4.19. Shahi Mahatma, with the help of Harinder
Manta and Pradeep Kumar @ Pankaj Ranta, has made a
syndicate and they work, as drug peddlers and supply the
same to different locations. In lieu of that, they used to
give free Chitta to all the peddlers, for their consumption.
Shahi Mahatma had also talked to the drugs smugglers of
Kashmir; namely Mushtaq and Javed.
4.20. On 21.09.2024, accused Shahi Mahatma, was
produced before the Court, from where, he was remanded
to police custody.
4.21. It has been mentioned, in the status report,
that on 20.09.2024, mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, was sent to SFSL Junga. On 23.09.2024, mobile
phones of Shahi Mahatma and his wife were also taken
into possession. Thereafter, those were sent to SFSL
Junga. Result regarding mobile phone of Muddasir Ahmad
Mochi, has been received. Service provider has been
requested to provide the CDRs of mobile phones of
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, and Shahi Mahatma.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:31738
4.22. Thereafter, bank statements of accused
High Court of H.P.
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi and Shahi Mahatma were
obtained. Perusal of the same shows that there are
transactions of crores of rupees in the bank accounts of
above two accused persons. Shahi Mahatma is using his
vehicle, bearing registration HP10C-1425, and after
receiving the information regarding arrest of accused
Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, on 19.09.2024, accused Shahi
Mahatma, along with his companion Pankaj Ranta, had
tried to flee away, in the said vehicle. Pankaj Ranta
succeeded in fleeing away, whereas, accused Shahi
Mahatma was arrested by RPF.
4.23. On 16.10.2024, accused Harinder Manta, was
arrested, who, on inquiry, disclosed that he is in the habit
of consuming Chitta from the year 2020 and earlier, he
used to get Chitta from his friends, but, thereafter, he is
purchasing the same from Delhi. In the year 2022, Solan
police had arrested him for allegedly possessing 150 grams
Chitta. Again, in the year 2023, he has been arrested by
the Police, along with Chitta. Thereafter, in the month of
January/February, he has contacted Shahi Mahatma for
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:31738
purchasing Chitta, upon which, Shahi Mahatma, used to
High Court of H.P.
provide Chitta in Rohru.
4.24. Accused Harinder Manta, used to transfer the
amount in the Bank account of Shahi Mahatma,
maintained in ICICI Bank. Thereafter, Shahi Mahatma,
used to forward him the location, from where, he used to
lift Chitta. Thereafter, accused Shahi Mahatma had
allured him to join the business of Chitta. The said offer
was accepted and he had also joined the said business,
thereafter.
4.25. Accused Harinder Manta used to purchase
Chitta from Delhi from Nigerian national and on the
directions of Shahi Mahtma, he used to keep Chitta at a
particular location and in lieu of that, amount was paid to
him in cash. In the month of March, 2024, amount was
transferred online, but, mostly, he used to get amount in
cash. In the month of March, 2024, he had purchased 100
grams Chitta on three occasions and sold the same in the
area through Shahi Mahatma. On the basis of above facts,
accused Harinder Manta was arrested.
4.26. Thereafter, the police had obtained the
statement of bank account No.048701503074 maintained
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:31738
by Harinder Manta with ICICI Bank Rohru. Perusal of the
High Court of H.P.
same shows that accused Harinder Manta, from his bank
account had transferred a sum of Rs.21,500/- to the bank
account of Shahi Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Das &
Sons. During investigation, it has been found that accused
Arvind Chauhan, has transferred a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-,
in the bank account of Harinder Manta, from 18.07.2023
to 11.09.2024.
4.27. Similarly, accused Naresh had transferred a
sum of Rs.14,000/- from 05.03.2024 to 12.09.2024, in the
bank account of Harinder Manta. Apart from this, there is
withdrawal of Rs.36,69,010/- and deposit of
Rs.36,67,942/- in the bank account of Harinder Manta.
4.28. On analysis of the statement of account of
accused Shahi Mahatma and Muddasir Ahmad Mochi, it
was found that there were transactions of lacs of rupees in
the bank account of Shahi Mahtama, maintained with ASP
International Bank.
4.29. Thereafter, bank account statements of Shahi
Mahatma, maintained with ASP International Bank were
obtained and it was found that Deepak Sharma (applicant)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:31738
has made transactions from his bank account, which is
High Court of H.P.
linked with mobile No.93171-12131.
4.30. As per the said statement, on 22.05.2024,
Deepak Sharma (applicant), has transferred a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
22.05.2024, a sum of Rs.700/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
23.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 31.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
01.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 01.06.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
02.06.2024, a sum of Rs.800/-, on 02.06.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
04.06.2024, a sum of Rs.500/-. Thus, a total sum of
Rs.15,000/- was credited in his account.
4.31. Apart from this, in the bank account of Shahi
Mahatma, maintained with Mangal Dass & Sons, there are
transactions of Rs.5600/- on 11.09.2024 and in the Bank
account No.7541002100001139, maintained with ASP
International Bank, on 21.02.2024, he has transferred a
sum of Rs.600/- on 21.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/-, on
14.03.2024, a sum of Rs.2000/-, on 17.04.2024, a sum of
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:31738
Rs.3300/-, on 19.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3300/-, on
High Court of H.P.
21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.3200/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of
Rs.2900/-, on 21.04.2024, a sum of Rs.300/-, on
22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.900/-, on
22.04.2024, a sum of Rs.80/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
02.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 02.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
05.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 05.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.200/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.800/-, on 13.05.2024, a sum of Rs.200/-, on
17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/-, on 17.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/-, on
20.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/-. Thus, he has made total
transactions worth Rs.32,680/-.
4.32. It is the further case of the Police that accused
Deepak Sharma (applicant), had made a transaction of
Rs.5870/- in the bank account of Muddasir Ahmad Mochi,
maintained with Axis Bank, as such, there is total
transaction of Rs.59,150/-.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
17 2026:HHC:31738
4.33. On 14.01.2025, accused Deepak Sharma
High Court of H.P.
(applicant) was associated, who has disclosed that he is
consuming Chitta from the year 2024. Initially, when, he
has started consuming Chitta, he used to purchase the
same from local boys; namely Naresh Kumar, Ankush.
Thereafter, with his friends and other boys of the area, he
had started purchasing Chitta, for further sale about one
year ago. Naresh, resident of Rohru, has disclosed to him
about the involvement of Shahi Mahatma. Thereafter, he
has started purchasing Chitta, from Shahi Mahatma.
4.34. It has also been mentioned, in the status report,
that in the Bank account of applicant Deepak Sharma,
there were transactions, from the account of accused
Purskrit Verma, of a sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a
sum of Rs.900/- on 13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on
15.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 16.10.2023, a sum of
Rs.900/- on 31.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on
01.11.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 09.12.2023, a sum of
Rs.400/- on 11.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1100/- on
14.12.2023, a sum of Rs.1000/- on 19.12.2023, a sum of
Rs.700/- on 20.12.2023, a sum of Rs.400/- on
13.10.2023, a sum of Rs.900/- on 04.01.2024, a sum of
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
18 2026:HHC:31738
Rs.900/- on 11.01.2024, a sum of Rs.370/- on
High Court of H.P.
13.01.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 13.01.2024, a sum of
Rs.1200/- on 08.02.2024, a sum of Rs.800/- on
16.02.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of
Rs.100/- on 24.02.2024, a sum of Rs.400/- on
26.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on 29.03.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/- on 10.05.2024, a sum of Rs.1000/- on
10.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1800/- on 12.08.2024, a sum of
Rs.700/- on 14.08.2024, a sum of Rs.900/- on
24.08.2024.
4.35. It has further been mentioned in the status
report that accused Jatin Thakur, has transferred a sum of
Rs.678/- on 26.08.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on
24.09.2024, a sum of Rs.2580/- on 25.09.2024. Thus, he
has transferred a total sum of Rs.3858/-.
4.36. Accused Mohit Thakur, has transferred a sum
of Rs.300/- on 07.08.2024, a sum of Rs.1500/- on
09.08.2024, a sum of Rs.300/- on 09.08.2024, a sum of
Rs.1000/- on 11.08.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on
11.08.2024. Thus, he has transferred a total sum of
Rs.3600/-.
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
19 2026:HHC:31738
4.37. Similarly, accused Naresh has transferred a
High Court of H.P.
sum of Rs.400/- on 05.02.2024, a sum of Rs.500/- on
17.02.2024, a sum of Rs.1300/- on 19.03.2024. Thus, he
has transferred a total sum of Rs.2200/-.
4.38. Similarly, accused Brij Mohan has transferred a
sum of Rs.1800/- on 19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.200/- on
19.02.2024, a sum of Rs.600/- on 01.03.2024, a sum of
Rs.200/- on 01.03.2024. Thus, he has transferred a sum
of Rs.2800/-.
4.39. Thus, according to the Police, Deepak Sharma
has made transactions worth Rs.33,228/- from his account
with the other accused persons. As such, there is specific
allegation that Deepak Sharma (applicant), has made
transactions of a total sum of Rs.92,378/- with the other
accused persons. Similar allegations have also been
levelled against the other accused in this case.
5. After completion of investigation, the police had
filed the charge-sheet. Considering the statements of the
witnesses recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.PC., as well
as, the documents, relied upon by the prosecution, the
learned trial Court has passed the order on 21.07.2025,
discharging the accused persons from the offences
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
20 2026:HHC:31738
punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act, read with
High Court of H.P.
Section 111 of BNS.
6. Aggrieved from the said order, State has
preferred the present revision petition, before this Court, on
the ground, that the learned trial Court, while, discharging
the accused persons from the offences, punishable under
Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, has not
considered the evidence, so collected, by the IO, in the
present case. No reason is stated to have been assigned,
by the learned trial Court, while discharging the accused,
as mentioned, above.
7. Highlighting the fact that there were financial
transactions between the main accused-Mudasir Ahmad
Mochi, with other accused persons, as mentioned, in the
report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., it has been
contended that the learned trial Court has fallen into an
error, by discharging the accused persons, from the
offences punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS Act and
Section 111 of BNS.
8. The findings have further been assailed, on the
ground, that the learned trial Court has not considered the
fact that the multiple transactions, even up to 200 times
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
21 2026:HHC:31738
w.e.f. 01.01.2024 to 01.11.2024, by the accused persons,
High Court of H.P.
with the main accused-Mudasir Ahmad Mochi and Shahi
Mahatama are sufficient to frame the charges, against
them.
9. The State has also given the history of the cases
registered against the respondents, namely Khushi Ram,
Aman Negi, Sahil Thakur, Harsh Dhanta, Balwan Singh,
Aman Kumar, Kanwar Thakur, Anuj Chauhan, Brij Mohan,
Arvind Chauhan, Surjeet @ Sanjeet, Hanish Ranta, Harshit
Chauhan, Harinder Manta Vivek Kumar, Purskrit Verma,
Salman Haider, Prithvi Raj, Narender Kumar and Ashutosh
Sharma.
10. Highly relying upon the evidence, so collected,
by the prosecution, qua the chain of drug money, through
CDRs, bank statements and digital evidence, a prayer has
been made that the learned trial Court has erroneously
discharged the accused persons, without any reasons.
11. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Tejasvi
Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick,
Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial and
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General, appearing
for the appellant have prayed that the order passed by the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
22 2026:HHC:31738
learned trial Court on 21.07.2025, may kindly be set-aside
High Court of H.P.
and the accused persons, may kindly be chargesheeted
for the offences, punishable under Section 27-A of NDPS
Act and 111 of BNS, along with the other offences, for
which, they have already been chargesheeted.
12. The prayer, so made, by the learned Additional
Advocate General has been opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for the accused persons, on the ground, that the
learned trial Court has rightly discharged the accused
persons from the offences punishable under Section 27-A
and Section 111 of BNS, as the prosecution could not
collect any evidence, upon which, even a finger of suspicion
can be raised, against the accused persons for the
commission of the above offences.
13. Supporting the order passed by the learned trial
Court, a prayer has been made to dismiss the revision
petition.
14. In the present case, after completion of the
investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet, under
Sections 21, 29, 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS,
whereas, the learned trial Court has discharged the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
23 2026:HHC:31738
accused persons from the offences, punishable under
High Court of H.P.
Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS.
15. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has
discharged the accused persons from the offences under
Section 27-A and Section 111 of BNS, by passing the
following order on 21.07.2025:
“Heard. From the perusal of challan, FIR
and other relevant documents relied upon
by the prosecution, there exists a prima
facie case for the commission of offences
punishable under Section 21 & 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
Act against the accused Mudasir Ahmed
Mochi and the commission of offences
punishable under Section 29 read with
Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act against the
rest of accused persons. There is no
material on record to establish case under
Section 27A of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act and under
Section 111 of BNSS against accused
accused persons, hence, accused persons
are discharged for the commission of
offences punishable under Section 27A of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
Act and under Section 111 of BNSS.”
16. The order has been assailed before this Court,
by way of revision by the State.
17. The object of framing of charge against the
accused persons, in a criminal trial, is to make them aware
about the case, for which, they are to be tried by the Court
by clearly explaining to them the main facts sought to be
established, against them, by the prosecution, or the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
24 2026:HHC:31738
complainant. At the time of framing the charge, the Court
High Court of H.P.
has to consider the material collected by the prosecution
and available on the record.
18. At the time of framing of charge, the Court can
consider only the material, placed before it, by the
investigating agency. The only right of the accused, at the
stage of framing of the charge, is of being heard and
nothing beyond the material produced, by the prosecution.
At the time of framing the charge, the duty of the Court, is
to see, whether the ingredients of the offences are available
in the material produced, before the Court, the sufficiency
and truthfulness of the material, as well as, statements of
the witnesses, so recorded, cannot be examined at the
stage of framing the charge. For the limited purpose, the
Court may go through the evidence, so recorded, by the IO,
as well as, the documents, collected by him, during the
investigation.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as
Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal
versus Anil Kumar Bhunja and others AIR
, reported in
1980, Supreme Court 52 , has elaborately, discussed the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
25 2026:HHC:31738
provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Relevant
High Court of H.P.
paragraph 18 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:-
“18. It may be remembered that the case was at the
stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence
had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had
therefore, to consider the above question on a general
consideration of the materials placed before him by
the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was
pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh
Singh , the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and
judgment which is to be applied finally before finding
the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be
applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure , 1973. At this stage, even a
very strong suspicion founded upon materials before
the Magistrate, which leads him to form a
presumptive opinion as the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged; may
justify the framing of charge against the accused in
respect of the commission of that offence.”
(Self emphasis supplied)
20. At the time of framing the charge, there is no
legal requirement for the trial Court to record the reasons,
but, in case, the learned trial Court has decided to
discharge the accused, recording of reason is mandatory,
as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as
Kanti Bhadra Shah and another versus State of West
Bengal, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 522
reported in .
Relevant paragraphs 8 to 11, are reproduced, as under:-
“8. We wish to point out that if the trial court decides to
frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should
pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to
do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the
trial judge has formed the opinion, upon consideration of
the police report and other documents and after hearing
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
26 2026:HHC:31738
both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed the offence concerned. Chapter
XIX deals with provisions for trial of warrant cases
instituted on police report. Section 239 reads thus :
High Court of H.P.
239. When accused shall be discharged. - (1) If, upon
considering the police report and the documents sent with
it under section 173 and making such examination, if any,
of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and
after giving the prosecution and the accused an
opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the
charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall
discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so
doing.
9. The said Section shows that the Magistrate is obliged to
record his reasons if he decides to discharge the accused.
The next section (Section 240) reads thus :
240, Framing of charge - (1) If, upon such consideration,
examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence triable under this
Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and
which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by
him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the
accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the
accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of
the offence charged or claims to be tried.
10. It is pertinent to note that this section required a
Magistrate to record his reasons for discharging the
accused but there is no such requirement if he forms the
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the
accused had committed the offence which he is competent
to try. In such a situation he is only required to frame a
charge in writing against the accused.
11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on police
report the Magistrate is required to write an order
showing the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused.
This is clear from Section 245 . As per first sub-section of
Section 245 , if a magistrate, after taking all the evidence
considers that no case against the accused has been made
out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, he
shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the
Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any
previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be
groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to
record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is
pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a court of
session, the judge is required to record reasons only if he
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
27 2026:HHC:31738
decides to discharge the accused. (vide Section 227 of the
Code). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so
without recording his reasons for showing why he framed
the charge.”
High Court of H.P.
(Self emphasis supplied)
21. Similar view has also taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case, titled as Om Wati and another
versus State through Delhi Admn. And others, reported
in (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 333. Relevant
paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment, are reproduced, as
under:-
“7. Section 227 of the Code provides that if upon
consideration of record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, the Judge considers that there is
no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused for which he
is required to record his reasons for so doing. No
reasons are required to be recorded when the charges
are framed against the accused persons. This Court
in Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West
Bengal [2000 (1) SCC 722] held that there is no legal
requirement that the trial court should write an order
showing the reasons for framing a charge. Taking note
of the burden of the pending cases on the courts, it was
held:
"11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on a
police report the Magistrate is required to write
an order showing the reasons only if he is to
discharge the accused. This is clear from Section
245 . As per the first sub-section of Section 245 , if
a Magistrate, after taking all the evidence
considers that no case against the accused has
been made out which if unrebutted would warrant
his conviction, he shall discharge the accused. As
per sub-section (2) the Magistrate is empowered
to discharge the accused at any previous stage of
the case if he considers the charge to be
groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged
to record his reasons for doing so. In this context
it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial
before a court of session, the Judge is required to
record reasons only if he decides to discharge the
accused (vide Section 227 of the Code). But if he
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
28 2026:HHC:31738
is to frame the charge he may do so without
recording his reasons for showing why he framed
the charge.
High Court of H.P.
12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial
court should write an order showing the reasons
for framing a charge, why should the already
burdened trial courts be further burdened with
such an extra work. The time has reached to
adopt all possible measures to expedite the court
procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all
roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a
Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different
stages merely because the counsel would address
arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress
of proceedings in trial courts would further be
slowed down. We are coming across
interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions
Judges running into several pages. We can
appreciate if such a detailed order has been
passed for culminating the proceedings before
them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed
orders at this stage, such as issuing process,
remanding the accused to custody, framing of
charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It
is a salutary guideline that when orders rejecting
or granting bail are passed, the court should
avoid expressing one way or the other on
contentious issues, except in cases such as those
falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs
and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985".
8. At the stage of passing the order in terms
of Section 227 of the Code, the Court has merely to
peruse the evidence in order to find out whether or
not there is a sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. If upon consideration, the
court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out
against the accused, the Judge must proceed to
frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code.
Only in a case where it is shown that the evidence
which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove
the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before
it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by
defence evidence cannot show that the accused
committed the crime, then and then alone the court
can discharge the accused. The court is not
required to enter into meticulous consideration of
evidence and material placed before it at this stage.
This Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs.
Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr. [1989 (1) SCC
715] cautioned the High Courts to be loathe in
interfering at the stage of framing the charges
against the accused. Self-restraint on the part of the
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
29 2026:HHC:31738
High Court should be the rule unless there is a
glaring injustice staring the court in the face. The
opinion on many matters can differ depending upon
the person who views it. There may be as many
opinions on a particular point, as there are courts
but that would not justify the High Court to interdict
the trial. Generally, it would be appropriate for the
High Court to allow the trial to proceed.
High Court of H.P.
9. Dealing with the scope of Sections
227 and 288 of the Code and the limitations
imposed upon the court at the initial stage of
framing the charge, this Court in State of Bihar vs.
Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018] held:
"Reading the two provisions together in
juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would
be clear that at the beginning and the initial
stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of
the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to
adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor
is any weight to be attached to the probable
defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for
the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider
in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance
whether the facts, if proved, would be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused
or not. The standard of test and judgment which
is to be finally applied before recording a
finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the
accused is not exactly to be applied at this
stage of deciding the matter
under S.227 or S.228 of the Code. At that stage
the court is not to see whether there is sufficient
ground for conviction of the accused or
whether the trial is sure to end in his
conviction. Strong suspicion against the
accused, if the matter remains in the region of
suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his
guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the
initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which
leads the court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then it is not open to the court to say
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The presumption of the
guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the
initial stage is not in the sense of the law
governing the trial of criminal cases in France
where the accused is presumed to be guilty
unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for
the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the
court should proceed with the trial or not. If the
evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
30 2026:HHC:31738
fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-
examination or rebutted by the defence, if any,
cannot show that the accused committed the
offence, there there will be no sufficient ground
for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list
of the circumstances to indicate as to what will
lead to one conclusion or the other is neither
possible nor advisable. We may just illustrate
the difference of the law by one more example.
If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence
of the accused are something like even at the
conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of
benefit of doubt the case is to end in his
acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at
the initial stage of making an order
under S.227 or S.228 , then in such a situation
ordinarily and generally the order which will
have to be made will be one under S.228 and
not under S.227 ."
High Court of H.P.
10. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Supdt.
& Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. [AIR
1980 SC 52] reminded the courts that at the
initial stage of framing of charges, the
prosecution evidence does not commence. The
Court has, therefore, to consider the question
of framing the charges on general
considerations of the material placed before it
by the investigating agency. At this stage, the
truth, veracity and effect of the judgment which
the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to
be meticulously judged. The standard of test,
proof and judgment which is to be applied
finally before finding an accused guilty or
otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the
stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis
of a strong suspicion founded on materials
before it, the court can form a presumptive
opinion regarding the existence of factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged
and in that event be justified in framing the
charges against the accused in respect of the
commission of the offence alleged to have been
committed by them. Relying upon its earlier
judgements in Ramesh Singh and Anil Kumar
Bhunja's cases (supra) this Court again
in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi
Administration [1996 (9) SCC 766] reiterated:
"9. Considerations which should weigh
with the Sessions Court at this stage have
been well designed by Parliament
through Section 227 of the Code of
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
31 2026:HHC:31738
Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code')
which reads thus:
High Court of H.P.
"227. Discharge—If, upon consideration of
the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he
shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."
Section 228 contemplates the stage after
the case survives the stage envisaged in the
former section. When the court is of
opinion that there is ground to presume
that the accused has committed an offence
the procedure laid down therein has to be
adopted. When those two sections are put
in juxtaposition with each other the test to
be adopted becomes discernible: Is there
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused? It is axiomatic that the
standard of proof normally adhered to at
the final stage is not to be applied at the
stage where the scope of consideration is
where there is "sufficient ground for
proceeding".
(Self emphasis supplied)
22. The distinction between the provisions of
Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Amit Kapoor
versus Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012)
9 Supreme Court Cases 460. Relevant paragraph 17 of
the judgment, is reproduced, as under:-
“17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by
the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code, unless
the accused is discharged under Section 227 of the Code.
Under both these provisions, the court is required to
consider the ‘record of the case’ and documents
submitted therewith and, after hearing the parties, may
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
32 2026:HHC:31738
either discharge the accused or where it appears to the
court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence, it shall frame
the charge. Once the facts and ingredients of the Section
exists, then the Court would be right in presuming that
there is ground to proceed against the accused and frame
the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a
presumption of law as such. The satisfaction of the court
in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence
and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for
exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than
a prima facie case. There is a fine distinction between the
language of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section
227 is expression of a definite opinion and judgment of
the Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that
at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form
an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of
committing an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.”
High Court of H.P.
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case, titled as Shoraj
Singh Ahlawat and others versus State of U.P. and
another, reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court Cases 52,
has held that even a strong suspicion about existence of
facts constituting offence is sufficient to refuse discharge.
Relevant paragraph 11 of the judgment, is reproduced, as
under:-
11. A plain reading of the above would show that the
“
Court trying the case can direct discharge only for reasons
to be recorded by it and only if it considers the charge
against the accused to be groundless. Section 240 of the
Code provides for framing of a charge if, upon
consideration of the police report and the documents sent
therewith and making such examination, if any, of the
accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, the Magistrate
is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence triable under
Chapter XIX, which such Magistrate is competent to try
and which can be adequately punished by him. The ambit
of Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the approach to be adopted by
the Court while exercising the powers vested in it under
the said provision fell for consideration of this Court
in Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
33 2026:HHC:31738
and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561. That too was a case in which
a complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 read
with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was filed against the
husband and parents-in-law of the complainant-wife. The
Magistrate had in that case discharged the accused
under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, holding that the charge
was groundless. The complainant questioned that order
before the Revisional Court which directed the trial Court
to frame charges against the accused persons. The High
Court having affirmed that order, the matter was brought
up to this Court. This Court partly allowed the appeal qua
the parents-in-law while dismissing the same qua the
husband. This Court explained the legal position and the
approach to be adopted by the Court at the stage of
framing of charges or directing discharge in the following
words:
High Court of H.P.
“11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge
the court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to finding out if the
facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value,
disclosed the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the
court is not expected to go deep into the probative
value of the material on record. What needs to be
considered is whether there is a ground for
presuming that the offence has been committed and
not a ground for convicting the accused has been
made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion
founded on material which leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged would
justify the framing of charge against the accused in
respect of the commission of that offence.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Judging the facts and circumstances of the
present case, in light of the decisions, as referred to above,
this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order passed
by the learned trial Court, which is impugned herein, does
not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court, as the
learned trial Court has not even considered the material,
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS
34 2026:HHC:31738
on record, what to talk about discarding the material, on
High Court of H.P.
record to discharge the accused persons.
25. The learned trial Court has simply held that
there is no material on record to establish the case under
Section 27-A of NDPS Act and Section 111 of BNS, which
has wrongly been mentioned, in the order sheet, as BNSS.
26. In such situation, the criminal revision
preferred by the State is allowed and the order dated
21.07.2025, passed by the learned trial Court is set-aside.
27. The matter is remanded to the learned trial
Court with a request to decide the question of framing the
charge, against the accused, in the light of observations, so
made hereinabove, as well as, in view of the decisions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above.
28. Ordered accordingly.
29. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
July 31, 2026
(Subhash Sharma)
::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2026 18:08:23 :::CIS