ORDER : The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the accused No.5 in S.C. No. 127 of 2023 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act & NDPS Act Cases, Manjeri (for short, 'the trial court') challenging the dismissal of the discharge application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C . 2. There are altogether five accused. The offences alleged against accused Nos. 1 to 3 are under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and the offence alleged against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 is under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 19.08.2022 at 11.30 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in possession of 21.450 kilograms of Ganja in contravention of the NDPS Act and Rules while they were transporting the same in a car bearing registration No. TN-09-BF-1275. The allegation against the petitioner and the accused No. 4 is that they arranged and sent money to the accused No. 2 to purchase the seized contraband. 4. The petitioner appeared at the trial court. He filed an application for discharge as Crl.M.P.No. 12 of 2023 on the ground that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against him. The trial court, upon consideration of the records of the case and after hearing the submission of the petitioner as well as the prosecution, formed an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offence and accordingly dismissed the application as per Annexure 1 order which is impugned in this Crl. R.P. 5. I have heard Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned Senior Counsel, as instructed by Sri. Satheesh Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the witnesses and the materials on record would reveal that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner in any way conspired with the remaining accused to commit the alleged offence. The trial court ought to have discharged the petitioner under S.227 of Cr.P.C , submitted the counsel. The counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner in any way conspired with the remaining accused to commit the alleged offence. The trial court ought to have discharged the petitioner under S.227 of Cr.P.C , submitted the counsel. On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials on record to prima - facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and when prima - facie case is established, the jurisdiction under S.227 of Cr.P.C to discharge the accused cannot be invoked. The trial court has rightly dismissed the discharge application, submitted the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. It is settled that, at the stage of consideration of the application for discharge, the court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials on record produced by the prosecution, nor is it for the court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At this stage, the court is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a conviction reasonably possible. 8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor made available to me the entire case diary. The prosecution case, as revealed in the final report, is that on 19/08/2022 at 11.30 hours, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were found in possession of 21.450 kilograms of Ganja while they were transporting the same in a car bearing Registration No.TN-09-BF-1275. Initially, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were alone arrayed as the accused. Based on the confession of accused No.2, after his arrest, accused No.4 was arrayed as an accused. Thereafter, based on the confession of the accused No.4, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. 9. The case diary shows that accused No.2 confessed to the police that accused No.4 and the petitioner arranged money for purchasing the Ganja. The investigation revealed that accused No.4 transferred a total amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the bank account of accused No.2, and the said amount was utilized for buying Ganja. The accused No. 4 confessed that he transferred Rs. 70,000/- to the accused No. 2 as directed by the petitioner. The investigation revealed that accused No.4 transferred a total amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the bank account of accused No.2, and the said amount was utilized for buying Ganja. The accused No. 4 confessed that he transferred Rs. 70,000/- to the accused No. 2 as directed by the petitioner. Thereafter, call detail records (CDR) of the petitioner and accused Nos. 2 and 4 were collected, which showed that there were so many calls between the petitioner and the accused No.4 and between the petitioner and the accused No.2. 10. As stated already, the contraband was seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3. No recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was made from the petitioner. He was not travelling in the car from which the contraband was seized. There is no other incriminating evidence against the petitioner. He was implicated in the crime based on the disclosure statement of the accused Nos. 2 and 4. The charge against the petitioner is only under Section 27 A of the NDPS Act which reads thus: "27A. Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders: - Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viiia) of S.2 or harbours any person engaged in any of the aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees". This Section refers to S.2(viiia) of the NDPS Act. That Section defines "illicit traffic" thus : "2. Definitions. This Section refers to S.2(viiia) of the NDPS Act. That Section defines "illicit traffic" thus : "2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (viiia) "illicit traffic", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means - (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter - State, export inter - State, import into India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or (v) handling or letting out any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv); other than those permitted under this Act, or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder, and includes - (1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned activities; (2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any of the aforementioned activities; and (3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities;" 11. According to the prosecution, the petitioner financed for the procurement of drugs and, therefore, committed the offence punishable under S.27 A. The final report discloses that the money to procure the Ganja was transferred by the accused No.4 to the bank account of the accused No.2 through Shanu Money Point, Kondotty. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner sent money to the accused No.2 or any other accused to buy the contraband. The prosecution version is that the petitioner directed the accused No.4 to transfer the money, and he had transferred Rs. 70,000/- to the bank account of the accused No.2 through Shanu Money Point, Kondotty. The only material on record relied on to connect the petitioner with the said allegation is the confession statement of the accused Nos.2 and 4 and the CDR showing the calls made between the petitioner and the accused Nos. 2 and 4. 12. It is settled that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as substantive evidence against another co-accused. 2 and 4. 12. It is settled that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as substantive evidence against another co-accused. It is equally settled that a confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. A confession made to the police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and will not be saved by the provisions of S.67 of the NDPS Act [ Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2021) 4 SCC 1 ]. Thus, the confession statement made by the accused Nos.2 and 4, implicating the petitioner, is not legally admissible evidence and cannot be used against the petitioner. 13. The call detail records by itself cannot carry forward the case of the prosecution to show that the petitioner financed the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in procuring Ganja. It can only show that the petitioner and the accused Nos. 2 and 4, were in contact with each other. Merely because one of the accused has made frequent phone calls with the co-accused, it would not be sufficient to presume his complicity in the commission of the offence in the absence of any other incriminating material. In the absence of any financial dealings, any recovery of narcotic substance or psychotropic substance from the petitioner, the fact that the CDR details show calls between the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 4 would not lead to any inference that the petitioner was in any way involved in the procurement and transportation of Ganja by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. 14. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner can be charged with the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act with the aid of Section 29. I cannot subscribe to the said submission. Section 29 of the NDPS Act enables the 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 evidence regarding conspiracy is quite difficult, if not impossible, for the conspiracy often takes place in secrecy. Section 29 of the NDPS Act enables the 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 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, such as the things said, done or written by anyone who is a party to the conspiracy before or after the 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 also would not lie. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. The impugned order dismissing the application for discharge is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside. The petitioner is discharged. The revision petition stands allowed.