JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against dated 9.1.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jodhpur whereby charge has been framed against the present petitioner and the application under Section 227, Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Short facts of the case are that on the basis of source information, officials of the Police Station Mohangarh visited the house of Yarmohammed who is brother of the present petitioner. Yarmohammed made some discloser and packets of heroin were seized on the instance of Yarmohammed. Thereafter the present petitioner was also arrested on the basis of the alleged mobile connection and he has been charged for the offence under Sections 8,21,22,23 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short 'the N.D.P.S. Act'). 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that there is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner. He has been implicated on the statement of the co-accused which is not admissible in evidence and further more, he has identified some places of incidence which are already in the knowledge of the investigating officer and hence no legal evidence is available against him and the charge should be quashed. 4. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that on the instance of the co-accused Yarmohammed contraband has been recovered from the land which was in possession and ownership of the present petitioner. Call details also suggest that the present petitioner has talked on various numbers on various occasions with coaccused and he has also talked some persons in Pakistan which clearly suggests his involvement in the offence. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the impugned order as well as the record of the case. 6. The present petitioner has been charged for the offences under Sections 8,21,22,23 read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The facts investigated clearly suggest the involvement of the present petitioner. Criminal conspiracy hatched in secret and no direct evidence can be collected. 6. The present petitioner has been charged for the offences under Sections 8,21,22,23 read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The facts investigated clearly suggest the involvement of the present petitioner. Criminal conspiracy hatched in secret and no direct evidence can be collected. Criminal conspiracy which can be presumed only by surrounding circumstances and a bare perusal of charge-sheet suggests that the present petitioner who is brother of co-accused Yarmohammed has called 32 times in June, 2009 on phone placed in Pakisthan and from mobile phone various calls have been made to co-accused person which clearly suggests the involvement of the present petitioner in the offence. Further more, the contraband has been recovered from the land which is in power and possession of the present petitioner which is sufficient to charge a person under Section 29 of the N.D.S.P.C. and hence there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.The revision petition is, therefore, rejected.Revision dismissed. *******