[2025:RJ-JP:41984] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 641/2025 Dr Rahul Kansal S/o Sunil Kumar Kansal, R/o Flat No 315 Kushal Nagar Sdc Euro Exotic Abhaypura Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Through Special Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Saurabh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma-Special PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/10/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal revision petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 8/22(c) and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered medical practitioner and he was in possession of pharmacy certificate. Counsel submits that certain medicine that the petitioner uses for prescribing to his patients were lying with the petitioner for which the instant case has been lodged against him and charge-sheet has been filed for the above offence. Counsel submits that several arguments were raised before the learned trial judge which reflect that no offence is made out against the petitioner but without considering the arguments put [2025:RJ-JP:41984] (2 of 3) [CRLR-641/2025] forward by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and without passing a reasoned and speaking order, the order impugned has been passed in a cursory manner which reflects the total non-application of mind on the part of the learned trial Judge. Hence, interference of this court is warranted. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that at the stage of framing the charges, it is not expected from the learned trial judge to pass a detailed and reasoned order. At this stage, only prima facie case is required to be seen. Counsel submits that from the documents available on record, a prima facie case is found to be made out against the petitioner and accordingly, charges have been framed against him for the above stated offence. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is not going to examine the merits of the matter but looking to the fact that impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not reflect any reason for framing the charges against the petitioner for the above stated offences, it is evident that a non-speaking order has been passed in a cursory manner. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that at the time of framing of the charges/discharge, it is expected from the learned Trial Judge to pass a reasoned and speaking order but in the instant case, the aforesaid facet is missing. On this count alone, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the Court below for passing a fresh order after hearing the arguments of both the sides. [2025:RJ-JP:41984] (3 of 3) [CRLR-641/2025] 8. Needless to observe that a reasoned order would be passed by the learned Trial Judge within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/10