Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26847
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1186 of 2026
AJAY TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
...................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ritesh Sharma, Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
...........................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 01.04.2026
Delivered on : 06.04.2026
...........................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'the BNSS') has been preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dtd.13.02.2026 passed in Case No. 12/2025 by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Anuppur, District Anuppur, whereby charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') has been framed against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 20:55:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26847 2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the impugned order dtd.13.02.2026 submits that even on the basis of material available on record i.e. FIR, Final Report and memorandum statements of the accused as well as of co-accused, no case for framing charge under 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is made out against the petitioner and the Court below has wrongly framed the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act solely on the basis of memorandum statements of accused and co-accused. He also submits that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the offence on the basis of his previous criminal history, which also cannot be made basis for framing charge. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592 and an order dtd.13.09.2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1341/2021 (Anoop Jaiswal alias Jassa vs. State of M.P.). He also submits that in the impugned order also nothing has been mentioned as to what material is available against the petitioner for framing the charge under the aforesaid section. On inter alia submissions he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for his discharge. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 20:55:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26847 3
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
5. Even though case diary is not available, but from the documents produced by counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that no allegation is there against the petitioner in the FIR and there are memorandum statements only.
6. However, as to from which document the Court has gathered that there are sufficient grounds for framing the charge against the petitioner, has not been mentioned in the impugned order, which is creating doubt about veracity of the findings recorded by the Court in the impugned order, which can be removed by the Court below itself by passing speaking order.
7. With a view to see the method and manner, in which the court below has exercised its jurisdiction, relevant part of the impugned order dtd.13.02.2026, is quoted as under :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 20:55:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26847 4 *****"प्रकरण का अवलोकन ककया गया। प्रथम सूचना ररपोर्ट , साक्षियों के कथन और उपलब्ध दस्तावेजों के आधार पर आरोपीगण के ववरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्ट्या धारा 20 (बी) (ii) (सी) स्वापक औषधध तथा मनः प्रभावी पदाथट अधधननयम, 1985 एवं के पयाटप्त आधार अभभलेख पर मौजूद हैं।
अतः उक्त अपराध के संबंध में पथ ृ क से आरोप-पत्र ववरधचत कर आरोपीगण एंव अधधवक्तागण को पढ़कर सुनाया व समझाया गया।"
8. In an identical situation, today itself this Court has in the case of Sanjay Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Police Station Berasiya and another, in Criminal Revision No. 1130 of 2026 dtd.06.04.2026 (at Jabalpur), placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 282; Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135; Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, (2022) 12 SCC 657; Rajneesh Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P., 2019 CrLJ 3515; Vinod Bohare vs. State of M.P., (2015) 2 MPLJ (Cri) 358; Kamla Shankar Nagda vs. State Of Rajasthan,Through Pp, 2026 Supreme (Raj) 159; Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2025 Supreme (Online) (RAJ) 1907; Ashok Bhadauria vs. State, 2016 Supreme (Del) 4389; Smt. Mewati Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1050; and Param Pal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 20:55:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26847 5 Singh Gandhi v The State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 10209, held as under:
"23. However, from the aforesaid discussion/settled legal position it is evident that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to pass a detailed or elaborate order as is expected at the stage of final adjudication. At the same time, the order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner. The court is required to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record, including the charge-sheet and the documents produced by the prosecution, and to sift the same to a limited extent for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The trial court is not obliged to assign detailed reasons while framing charges; however, the order must reflect that the court has formed its opinion on the basis of the material available on record. Such material, forming the basis of the satisfaction of the court, ought to be indicated in the order itself so as to demonstrate that the court has duly considered the record and has arrived at the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and make him stand trial.
24. It is also apt to mention here that in revisional jurisdiction, the Court is empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceeding for the limited purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, and the regularity of the proceedings of the subordinate court. However, in my considered opinion this exercise of jurisdiction necessarily implies the existence of findings recorded by the court below. Where the subordinate court has failed to record necessary findings or has omitted to apply its judicial mind upon material issues, the revisional court cannot undertake an independent appreciation of evidence or substitute its own conclusions in the absence of such findings. In such circumstances, the proper course for the revisional court is to remand the matter back to the trial court for recording findings, as in the absence of such findings the revisional court cannot Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 20:55:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26847 6 effectively exercise its jurisdiction. This is because the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and is not intended to convert itself into a court of first instance.
25. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position about framing of charge and in absence of any finding indicating recording of satisfaction/application of mind while framing the charge, this court has no option but to set aside the impugned order framing the charge and to remand the same to the court below for fresh consideration in the light of aforesaid settled legal position."
9. Apparently, aforesaid binding settled legal position, has not been followed by the Court below while passing the impugned order in the instant case also.
10. Resultantly, the criminal revision succeeds and is allowed and by setting aside the impugned order, matter is remanded to the Court below for passing order afresh in the light of aforesaid settled legal position, without being influenced by this order.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Arun* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 06-04-2026 20:55:24