ORDER 1. The instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner aggrieved from order of charge dated 05.01.2023 in Sessions Case No. 12/2022 arising out of FIR No. 86/2021 registered at P.S. Viratnagar, Jaipur Rural whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Shahpura, Jaipur had framed charge under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act against petitioner. 2. The fact of the matter is that upon receiving information regarding transition of certain contraband goods, SHO Virat Nagar had recorded it in writing under Section 42 of NDPS Act and sent it to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural, thereafter on interception on 09.04.2021 around 7.30 P.M. two persons namely Rampal Gurjar and Hitesh Kirad were found travelling with unidentified item in plastic bag kept in carton. Thereafter, effecting recovery and seizure as per provisions, a total of 4.230 Kg of 'Ganja' was recovered from two packets. After completing the formalities, case was registered and during investigation, mobile call details were obtained whereby it was found that both Rampal Gurjar and Hitesh Kirad were involved with present petitioner. After confirming the involvement of present petitioner, he was arrested and ultimately charged under Section 8/29 of NPDS Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 1273/2021) submitted that learned trial court while framing charge under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act, clearly ignored the law point that statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be read against petitioner. He further submitted that learned trial Court had relied upon the statement and information given by coaccused to implicate the present petitioner but such information or statement is not admissible in the eye of law against present petitioner. He further submitted that police had recorded information given by Rampal Gurjar and Hitesh Kirad under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act but nowhere, information about present petitioner was given to police. He further submitted that site plan which was prepared after verification at the instance of Rampal Gurjar and Hitesh Kirad had not named the present petitioner. He further submitted that first time, it was interrogation note of Rampal Gurjar recorded by police wherein the name of present petitioner was mentioned but this interrogation note is itself inadmissible as evidence against the present petitioner. He further submitted that first time, it was interrogation note of Rampal Gurjar recorded by police wherein the name of present petitioner was mentioned but this interrogation note is itself inadmissible as evidence against the present petitioner. He further submitted that after arrest of present petitioner he was also interrogated and a confessional statement in the police custody was recorded, which is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, thus inadmissible in view of principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tofan Singh (supra). He further submitted that learned trial Court had referred call details to support the reasons of charge but no such call details were made available to present petitioner. He further submitted that the record and investigation clearly indicated that no mobile handset was seized from petitioner and no record of ownership of SIM card was produced by Investigating Officer. He further submitted that call details are thoroughly unverified, without obtaining certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act from concerned service provider, rather a certificate from Police Constable working in police station was obtained which is not permissible. It is further submitted that no document to indicate and implicate present petitioner on the basis of so called mobile conversation was proved for framing of charge. He further submitted that no document was produced to prove ownership of mobile to the Court. He further submitted that without any basis or grave suspicion, learned trial Court had proceeded to frame charge on assumption and presumption which is impermissible under the law. He further relied upon judgment dated 24.04.2019 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2209/2018 titled as Saurabh Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan whereby this Hon'ble Court had discharged Saurabh Agarwal of conspiracy prior to or after recovery of Saurabh Agarwal. At the end, he submitted that learned trial Court had failed to consider material available on record and if same was considered then no charge is made out against petitioner. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that in compliance of order of this Court, he had filed call details. He further submitted that learned trial Court had assigned specific reasons on the basis of which charge was framed. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that in compliance of order of this Court, he had filed call details. He further submitted that learned trial Court had assigned specific reasons on the basis of which charge was framed. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record, considered the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also of this Court. 6. Herein a total of 4.230 Kg contraband was recovered and it is an admitted fact that during interception or recovery, present petitioner was not available on the spot thus no recovery was effected from present petitioner. 7. Now the question is whether statement made by co-accused is admissible against present petitioner or not. In cases of NDPS, the issue was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tofan Singh (supra) and Sanjeev Chandra (supra) wherein it is clearly laid down that the cases based on statement by coaccused given to police officers under Section 67 of NDPS Act are inadmissible in evidence. This point was taken up well before learned trial Court and while considering the fact that besides statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, record of call detail is also available. Thereafter, learned trial court while referring the judgment of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap 2021 SCC Online SC 314 had opined that at the stage of framing of charge, prima facie consideration of material available on record is sufficient to frame the charge and after referring call details available on record had proceeded to frame the charge. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that these call details were not made available to him and upon request to supply copy, whether this plea was raised before learned trial Court, the counsel submitted that the same was not raised, therefore the objection cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. 8. When we consider the call details as submitted by learned Public Prosecutor received from P.S. Viratnagar in compliance of order dated 24.03.2023 as available on record wherein specific mobile numbers of present petitioner and also mobile number of two other individuals facing trial for charge under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act were included in the report. 8. When we consider the call details as submitted by learned Public Prosecutor received from P.S. Viratnagar in compliance of order dated 24.03.2023 as available on record wherein specific mobile numbers of present petitioner and also mobile number of two other individuals facing trial for charge under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act were included in the report. As regard to ownership of SIM or mobile handset is concerned, no document is available on record to indicate that mobile number as referred by police belongs to all accused persons or any of them in the matter. A perusal of charge-sheet clearly indicated that mobile handsets along with SIM card were recovered and seized at the time of arrest from Rampal and Hitesh. Similarly when present petitioner was arrested on 16.12.2021, a mobile phone of Oppo company was also seized by police though no mobile number was indicated in memo of arrest. No document was filed with charge-sheet to prove authentication of SIM card issued in the name of accused or any other person. When we further perused the documents, it was found that mobile handset of neither of the accused was not sent to examination by FSL, though that was not required at all. Now the question before us is that the evidence which is available i.e. the oral evidence of Investigating Officer or other police officials, is sufficient to frame the charge? 9. Having considered each and every aspect of the matter, it is trite that any confessional statement is not admissible in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) and charge under Section 8/29 of NPDS Act on the basis of statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be framed. Now the question is what is required to be looked into at the time of framing of charge. Learned trial Court had relied upon law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (supra) wherein State had preferred SLP against discharge of accused by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.09.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 1270/2018. Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon case of P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 398 and State of Karnataka Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (supra) wherein State had preferred SLP against discharge of accused by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.09.2018 in Criminal Revision No. 1270/2018. Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon case of P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 398 and State of Karnataka Vs. M.R. Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 had clearly laid down that at the stage of charge, probative value of material have to be looked into and the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that material would not warrant a conviction. What needs to be considered is whether there is ground for assuming that offence has been committed or not, whether case for convicting the accused has been made out or not. To put it differently, if the court thinks that accused might have committed the offence on the basis of material on record on its probation value, it can frame charge though for conviction, the Court has to come to a conclusion that accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside the order of discharge passed by this Court opined that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and had acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 Cr.P.C. While discharging accused, High Court had gone into the merits of the case and had considered whether on the basis of material available on record, accused is likely to be convicted or not. 10. Considering the aforesaid principles as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and relied upon by learned trial Court, it is well settled that at the stage of charge, mini trial is impermissible. Considering aforesaid aspect, learned trial Court had proceeded in correct manner and this Court does not find any reason to differ from opinion of framing charge as assigned by learned trial Court, therefore, if anything is left out during investigation or recovery; might be deliberate to help accused or damage the prosecution case even then same can be considered only at the time of trial not before. 11. Thus, disagreeing with the contentions as raised by learned counsel for petitioner, present revision petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 13. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.