JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral):- Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondents were challenged and prosecuted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the court of Sessions Judge, Shimla. The case of the prosecution against the respondents was that on receipt of information from some informal source that the respondents are dealing in Charas and opium and they proposed to sell Charas on 11.5.1989 to someone at Marog. On receipt of such information Shri R.M. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog formed a raiding party consisting of Inspector Chander Shekhar, Constable Kamal Dev, S.I. Satish Kumar, S.I. Madan Lal, constables Panna Lal, Beli Ram and E.T.O. Babu Ram. This raiding party reached Marog at 5.00 P.M. On reaching Marog, they learnt that respondents are on their way to Marog alongwith Charas with a purpose to sell it to their contacts on receipt of this information, this raiding party left for Pajarli. On the way, one Surinder Singh of village Gorli met them and he was also taken alongwith the raiding party. When this raiding party reached near Chohag Nallah, the accused were coming towards Marog and were carrying something in jute bags. Their jute bags were checked and it was found that in the jute bags the respondent Bhag Mal was carrying 20 Kgs. of Charas and Ranu Ram respondent was carrying 7-1/2 Kgs. of Charas. After taking out samples, remainder Charas as well as samples were sealed on the spot and were taken into possession. After seizure of the contraband, Ruqua was sent to Police Station, Chopal for lodging of F.I.R. which was accordingly registered. Chemical Examiner after examination of the samples sent to him opined that it was Charas. On receipt of such report and on the basis of other material collected during the course of investigation, police found that the respondents are guilty of having committed offence under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, challan was presented by the police before the court below. Learned Sessions Judge had discharged the respondents after having been satisfied that there is non-compliance of the provisions of law viz. Sections 50(1), 52(1) and 57 of the Act. 2. It may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of law at this stage concerning raid, search and seizure in case of contrabands. Learned Sessions Judge had discharged the respondents after having been satisfied that there is non-compliance of the provisions of law viz. Sections 50(1), 52(1) and 57 of the Act. 2. It may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of law at this stage concerning raid, search and seizure in case of contrabands. So far Section 50(1) of the Act is concerned, whenever an authorised officer under Section 42 of the Act apprehends a person on suspicion that he is carrying some contraband, then before taking search, he is required to inform the person to be searched that the latter has a right to be taken to a Gazetted Officer or to a Magistrate for being searched. Similarly Section 52(1) of the Act requires that an office arresting a person under the provisions of Section 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Act shall as soon as may inform the person arrested of the grounds of his arrest and under Section 57 of the Act after the arrest or seizure under the Act, the Arresting Officer within forty- eight hours is required to make a full report of all particulars of such arrest of seizure to his immediate superior officer. 3. There can be hardly any dispute as to the effect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law under the Act at the time of conduct of search and seizure. This matter had been subject matter of judicial decisions and the controversy has been set at rest by the Apex Court in its recent decisions. 4. The important question is that at what stage the non-compliance has to be appreciated i.e. whether at the stage of framing of charge or at a stage after evidence had been recorded. In the instant case, the court below after considering the entire material on record was of the view that even if all such materials are taken to be correct, since the prosecution is bound to fail for want of compliance of the aforementioned mandatory provisions, as such there is no reason to proceed against the accused and both the respondents have been discharged. 5. Mr. K.C. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has committed grave error in discharging the respondents at the stage of framing the charge & having discharged them. 5. Mr. K.C. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has committed grave error in discharging the respondents at the stage of framing the charge & having discharged them. He has further submitted that it may have been good ground for the court below to acquit the respondents, but it could be only after the evidence had been recorded and not at the stage of framing of the charge. Mr. Rana also submitted that even if it be assumed for the sake c: argument that the evidence collected by the prosecution is in violation of the mandate provisions of Sections 50, 52 and 57 of the Act that by itself does not become inadmissible. It will be for the trial Court after conclusion of the evidence to decide as to what weightage is to be attached to such evidence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has forcefully controverted all the submissions made by Shri Rana and has submitted that continuance of proceedings against the respondents would serve no fruit purpose and the same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law as w as court. He further submitted that trial court is bound to consider the materials placed before it at the time of framing of the charge and to co to a conclusion whether the respondents can be said to have committed an; offence on the basis of the materials placed before it. He further urged that primafacie it is a clear cut case of non-compliance of mandatory provision of law which goes to the root of the case. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that primafacie material for framing of charge; has to be of such a nature on the basis whereof it can be held -at that time that unless that material is rebutted, the case can be said to have been made out for convicting the respondents. 7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Rana has placed reliance on a case reported in (1996) 2 SCC 37, State of H. P. v. Prithi Chand and learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on AIR 1996 SC 1744, State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa. 8. 7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Rana has placed reliance on a case reported in (1996) 2 SCC 37, State of H. P. v. Prithi Chand and learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on AIR 1996 SC 1744, State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa. 8. After considering the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as after taking into account the decisions referred to above, the important question that needs to be considered is whether simply for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law, evidence so called during the course of investigation per se becomes admissible. The answer obviously would be that it is not per se inadmissible. Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law under the Act is one thing. But whether such an evidence is inadmissible under the provisions of Evidence Act is another thing. For making the evidence inadmissible the trial Court has to see whether it is so under the provisions of Evidence Act or any other law governing evidence, which can only be done after the conclusion of the trial In a given situation, search may not be in consonance with the provisions of law, but whether the seizure is in consonance with law or not, born these questions are not to be scrutinised at the stage of framing of charge, but may have relevance after the conclusion of evidence. 9. Another test for examining this case is whether on the basis of the material on record, it can .be said that the material collected by the prosecution points out towards prima-facie guilt of the respondents. After going through the records of the case, the answer would be in the affirmative and it can further be held at this stage that there is enough material for framing charge against the respondents. 10. Looking to the factual matrix in the context of the present case, it can be said that the prosecution has collected material to prima-facie show that respondent Bhag Mai was found to be carrying 20 Kgs. of Charas whereas respondent Ranu Ram was carrying 7-1/2 Kgs. of Charas at the time when this is stated, to have been seized from both of them. Prima-facie the action of the respondents was aimed at getting rich overnight by indulging into dealing of the contraband as per prosecution case. 11. of Charas whereas respondent Ranu Ram was carrying 7-1/2 Kgs. of Charas at the time when this is stated, to have been seized from both of them. Prima-facie the action of the respondents was aimed at getting rich overnight by indulging into dealing of the contraband as per prosecution case. 11. Possession of contraband in such a large quantity is another relevant consideration for examining the prosecution case at this stage Looking to the linger interest of the society and menace of younger generation failing prey to the use of narcotics and drugs it is high time that the persons like respondents are tried under law. The matter relating to the discharge for non-compliance of provisions of law is directly and substantially covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand (supra) and time for such consideration is only after conclusion of trial and not at the time of framing the charge as in the present case. 12. So far reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be hardly any dispute regarding legal proposition laid down in the said judgment, but when the ratio laid therein is applied of the facts of this case, no benefit can be derived from the same by the learned counsel for the respondents. It may be appropriate to point out here that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the statements cannot be gone into which has to be gone into at the time of trial. In this view of the matter also, the trial Court was not justified in ordering the discharge of the respondents at the stage of framing of the charge. 13. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. As a result of the above discussion, this revision petition succeeds and consequently the impugned order of the discharge passed by the Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside. Trial Court is directed to frame the charge against the respondents and thereafter proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear in the Court below on 21.4.1997. Trial Court is directed to frame the charge against the respondents and thereafter proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear in the Court below on 21.4.1997. Looking to the date of incident, it is hoped that keeping in view its docket, the trial Court would dispose of the case with utmost expedition and as far as possible by 31.10.1997.