ORDER The 2nd accused in S.C.No.460 of 2019 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Pathanamthitta, is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed his petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner along with one Atoar Ali was arrested on 17.09.2018 at 4.45 p.m. at Thondalipadi in Pathanamthitta Village, while they were walking along Valanchuzhi-Kulasekharapathi Road on finding that they were in possession of Ganja. The allegation is that Atoar Ali was in possession of 692 grams and the petitioner was in possession of 934 grams of Ganja. The detecting officer by following the prescribed procedure, effected seizure and arrested both of them. After necessary investigation, a final report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta alleging offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act). 4. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1121 of 2023 seeking discharge. His case was that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the offence that would constitute is one punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner would urge that the learned Sessions Judge without considering the materials in the proper perspective, reached a conclusion that an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act is constituted for which the petitioner and the 1st accused are liable to be tried. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even the investigating officer does not have a case of conspiracy among the petitioner and the 1st accused in carrying the contraband and therefore the decision of the court below to frame a charge with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act is incorrect and liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that both the accused were sailing together for, they came to the place of occurrence by travelling together and were walking along the road together. From their movements and also from the fact that their destination was common, their common intention to possess contraband is very much evident and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is correct. 6. Upto one kilogram of Ganja is small quantity. From their movements and also from the fact that their destination was common, their common intention to possess contraband is very much evident and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is correct. 6. Upto one kilogram of Ganja is small quantity. If it is taken that the possession of the contraband by the petitioner and the 1st accused was independent, the offence would be one for the possession of a small quantity of Ganja. On the other hand, the quantity is taken cumulatively, the offence would be one for possessing intermediate quantity under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Indisputably, the quantity of Ganja seized from the petitioner is 692 and the 1st accused 934 grams. If they conspired together and in pursuance of that conspiracy, each of them possessed such a quantity of Ganja, they are liable to be tried for an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 7. The allegation in the final report is that 692 grams of Ganja was seized from the bag held by the 1st accused and 934 grams of Ganja from the bag held by the petitioner. There is no allegation in the final report that in pursuance of their pre-concert or conspiracy, they possess such quantity of Ganja. 8. On a perusal of the seizure mahazar, which is a part of Annexure A1 final report, it is seen that while the petitioner and the 1st accused were walking along the road they were intercepted and a search was conducted. Similar is the version of the witnesses cited by the prosecution; the officials as well as private witnesses to the seizure. It cannot be seen from the statement of any of the said witnesses that the petitioner and the 1st accused were persons having prior acquaintance with each other. Only if the petitioner and the 1st accused possessed the contraband of different quantities in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, can there be a charge for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Section 29 enables fastening of constructive liability if a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence and in pursuance of such a conspiracy commits the offence. It is true that gathering of evidence regarding conspiracy is quite difficult, if not impossible for, the conspiracy often takes place in secrecy. Section 29 enables fastening of constructive liability if a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence and in pursuance of such a conspiracy commits the offence. It is true that gathering of evidence regarding conspiracy is quite difficult, if not impossible for, the conspiracy often takes place in secrecy. But, the evidence that would be relevant under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1872 such as the things said, done or written by anyone who is party to the conspiracy before or after commission of the actual offence could be brought on record. In the absence of a proposal to adduce any such evidence either oral or documentary, a charge against the petitioner with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act cannot be said to be legal. There is dearth of materials to clamp the petitioner with the charge punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act; whereas the materials on record certainly would make out grounds for presuming that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 20(b(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. To that extent, the impugned order is incorrect. 9. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed in part. In modification of the order of the court below dated 04.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.1121 of 2023 it is ordered that the charge for the offence under S.20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act shall be framed against the petitioner and also against the 1st accused.