JUDGMENT R. K. Mahajan, J.—This is a revision petition filed by the State under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 1-4-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, whereby the accused has been discharged in case F.I.R No. 340/89, deted 3-11-1989 registered at Police Station, Kangra with respect to recovery of 1 kg 700 gms. of Charas under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to "N. D. P. S. Act") by giving reasoning that there is non-compliance of sections 42t 50, 52 and 55 of N D. P. S Act which are mandatory in nature The learned Sessions Judge has also relied upon the authority of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 1990, decided on 2010 1990. The accused Shri Pa wan Kumar was found in possession of 1 kg 700 gms. Charas and recovery was effected just near HIFED store, Nagrota Bagwan, Tehsil and District Kangra on his personal search The accused was apprehended when he tried to run on seeing the police. After investigation the challan was put up before the learned Sessions Judge for trial. The learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused for non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions by the prosecution. 2. Feeling aggrieved this revision petition has been filed by the State saying that the discharge order is illegal, wrong and not sustainable in law. The order has also been challenged on the ground that learned trial Court has wrongly held that in this case the Investigating Officer had not reduced into writing secret information as required under section 42 of the N. D. P. S Act. It is stated that in this case there was no secret information available with the police about the accused carrying the Charas and as such there is no question of reducing any information into writing. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties For framing of a charge it is a well settled principle of law that if the allegations supported by record, if any, remains unrebutted and no offence is disclosed if those allegations are accepted to be true then only a discharge order has to be made. Relevant sections are sections 227 and 228 of Chapter XVIII of Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with trial before a Court of Session. Relevant sections are sections 227 and 228 of Chapter XVIII of Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with trial before a Court of Session. Section 227 and section 228 abovesaid are reproduced herein below: "227. Discharge —If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, , the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." "228. Framing of charge.—(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which— (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 4. In this case the judge has to form an opinion from the material on record that there are grounds for framing of charge that the accused had committed an offence and not to start criticising that there is no compliance of the different provisions of the N D P. S. Act Therefore, in this case the judge has assumed the role of trial Court criticising the evidence at earlier stage which he should have done after the adducing of the evidence by the prosecution and defence The approach of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous in law and unreasonable and on this ground the revision petition is liable to be accepted 5. Mr D.D. Sood, counsel for the respondent, has argued in support of the learned Sessions Judge order on the reasoning that the court can go at the time of framing of charge for non-compliance of the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. Mr D.D. Sood, counsel for the respondent, has argued in support of the learned Sessions Judge order on the reasoning that the court can go at the time of framing of charge for non-compliance of the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. He submits that the court cannot take cognizance unless the provisions of the NDPS Act has been complied with. I have taken through the record of Investigation Officer and accused was given option that if he so requires he can get his search effected from superior police officer or from a Judge. This offer was actually made or not the accused is also matter which has to be weighed in a final scale before the trial Court but police records show that offer was given. Mr. Sood has relied upon full Court decision of this High Court ruling in 1993 (2) Sim LC 6 titled State v. Vidya Devi, regarding non-compliance of the provisions of sections 41, 42 and 50 of the N. D. P. S Act. Mr. Sood has pressed that the prosecution has to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding compliance of the provisions of sections 41, 42 and 50 of the N D P. S. Act. This ruling does not reflect the principle that discharge can be made out-right by the trial Judge by simply saying that there is no compliance of the provisions of N D PS Act without holding trial after framing charge. Another ruling which has been cited is 1994 Suppl (2) SCC 707 titled State of U P v Dr. Sanjay Singh and another. This ruling is not applicable in the present case There is no dispute regarding principle laid down in this judgment and mere suspicion of motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing the charges in the absence of any material, prima facie showing that the particular motive has passed into action and that the accused is connected with that action in question. 6. Counsel for the State has submitted that if there is chance of recovery of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the same is not held to be illegal and it may not be possible to comply with the provisions of Cr. P. C. If there is any non-compliance of the provisions of Cr. P. C. that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case outright. P. C. If there is any non-compliance of the provisions of Cr. P. C. that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case outright. Further the counsel for the State has relied upon Honble Supreme Court authority in AIR 1994 SC 1872 titled State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, to support his submission that when the search is already over in the usual course of investigation under the provisions of Cr. P. C. then the question of complying with section 50 would not arise. 7. The N. D. P S. Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to provide for the forfeiture or property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith The provisions have been made to check the menace of this serious evil at the same time punishment is hard and very severe and for that purpose the compliance of provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. This aspect would only be gone after the conclusion of trial and not before that. Compliance of the provisions of N D P. S. Act depends from stage to stage. In a chance recovery the seizure may be valid depending upon the circumstances of the case after appreciating the evidence and thereafter the investigation officer is to observe the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit so that prejudice may not result. On prior information, the empowered officer or authorised officer while acting under sections 41 (2) or 42 should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the search of the person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires, he shall be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as provided thereunder. It is obligatory on the part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. It is obligatory on the part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. Failure to inform the person to be searched and if such person so requires, failure to take him to the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, would amount to non-compliance of section 50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the triat After being so informed whether such person opted for such a course or not would be a question of fact But in this case the choice has been given to the accused to be searched before a Judge or superior officer and the varacity of this has to be judged by the trial Court after recording the evidence. 8. Even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence and reliance to this effect is made in AIR 1980 SC 52 titled Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others. 9. Mr. D. D. Sood, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the accused was beaten, as per medical report, by the police and suffered 10 injuries on 4-11-1989. The recoveries is dated 3-1M989. He submits that recovery is not genuine. This question has to be gone again at the time of trial and not at the stage of pre-trial. 10. In view of the above discussion and reasons recorded I am of the view that the discharge order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshaia dated 1-4-1991 is not warranted under law and the same is set aside, with a further direction that the trial is to be expedited within six months as the offence is of long ago. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and disposed of. The copy of the judgment be circulated to all the Judicial Officers for their guidance. Revision petition allowed.