Judgment N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 3 1. 7. 1987 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera, whereby cognizance against the petitioner was taken. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this petition are that one Shri Bhanwar Lal, Narcotics Inspector lodged a report with the allegation that the petitioners were carrying poppy husk (Doda) in a truck No. RJH 8861 without permit. On investigation, it was found that poppy husk was purchased under a valid permit. As such final report was submitted but the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 16. 8. 1986 directed the police to further investigate in the matter. Again the police submitted the final report put the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners on 3 1. 7. 1987 u/s. 4 and 9 of the Opium Act. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 4 ) MR. Sunil Mehta, has submitted that the petitioners never purchased poppy husk from village Nardhari but from the villages for that they had a valid permit and the learned Magistrate, has erred in taking cognizance against the petitioner without appreciating two final reports. ( 5 ) MR. S. M. Singhvi, learned Public Proseculor has opposcd the petition, and submitted that cognizance against the petitioners has been rightly taken. ( 6 ) IN this case the petitioners have a valid permit and under the permit dt 26. 4. 1985 valid upto 29. 4. 1985 they purchased poppy husk from the villages Mokhampura, Kashya Khurd and Leswa and when they were carrying poppy husk, the truck was stopped and it was checked at village Nardhari. There is no evidence on record that the petitioners have ever purchased poppy husk (doda) during the relevant period from the villagers of village: Nardhari, on the other hand the truck was stopped for a while at village Nardhari and it was checked by Narcotics Inspector. As per evidence, the petitioner has another valid permit issued on 15. 5. 1985 valid upto 18. 5. 1985 and the observation of the learned Magistrate that the purchase of poppy husk by the petitioners on 28. 4. 85 on the basis of permit of 15:5. 85 is not called for. As per evidence, the petitioner has another valid permit issued on 15. 5. 1985 valid upto 18. 5. 1985 and the observation of the learned Magistrate that the purchase of poppy husk by the petitioners on 28. 4. 85 on the basis of permit of 15:5. 85 is not called for. Thus the learned Magistrate has eaed to come to the conclusion that final report was submitted on the basis of permit of 15. 5. 1985, whereas poppy husk (doda) was purchased on 28. 4. 1985. In this view of me matter, if the order of learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioner is maintained it will amount to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, in my opinion, to secure ends of justice the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 31. 7. 1987 is set aside. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed, the order passed by learned Magistrate is set aside and the cognizance taken against the petitioners in case no. 526/87 State v. Mishri Lal and Ors. is quashed. Petition allowed.