Honble JAIN, J.–This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh whereby the learned Special Judge framed the charge of the offence u/S. 8/20 of the NDPS Act (for short `the Act) against the petitioner. (2). The brief facts leading to this revision are that on a secret information being received by the Police, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh alongwith police party trapped accused Bhanwar Singh and recovered 4.500 kgs. of contraband opium from him. On interrogation, accused Bhanwarsingh informed that he had purchased the above quantity of opium from one Gopal son of Fakirchandji resident of Supada (M.P.) in a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. Gopal was also arrested on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. and he was also interrogated by the Incharge, Police Station, Ranthanjana and he informed the police that he was doing this illegal trafficking of contraband opium with co-accused Rajesh. Accordingly, Rajesh was also arrested on 10.12.1995 and was interrogated by the SHO, Police Station, Ranthanjana. During interrogation, Rajesh stated that Gopal borrowed a sum of Rs. 24,000/- from the petitioner for the purpose of purchasing the above opium. Thereupon, the accused-petitioner Shyam Lal was also arrested. This is the only material for implicating the accused- petitioner in this case alongwith other accused-persons viz., Rajesh, Gopal, Bhanwar Singh and Shambhulal etc. (3). After investigation, the police filed a challan against the petitioner also and the learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused-petitioner for the offence u/S. 8/20 of the Act by his order dated 6.2.1996. Hence this revision petition. (4). I have heard M/s. P.K. Shah and Rahul Bathi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner and Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (5). It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner that there is not an iota of evidence on record which connects the accused with the alleged recovery of the contraband opium from Bhanwar Singh. There is also no allegation that the accused was also involved in any way with the trafficking of contraband opium. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he was instrumental in advancing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Gopal which facili- tated him in purchase of contraband opium. There is also no allegation that the accused was also involved in any way with the trafficking of contraband opium. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he was instrumental in advancing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Gopal which facili- tated him in purchase of contraband opium. In the first instant, the statement made by Rajesh before the Investigating Officer is not admissible in evidence and further his evidence is also hit by the provisions of Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act. There is also contradictions in the sense that Gopal has not uttered a word against the accused- petitioner. This allegation was only made by Rajesh. (6). The learned counsel also drew my attention to the application moved for taking remand of the accused-petitioner. In that application dated 31.8.1995, the police stated that the accused-petitioner had been arrested in pursuance of the information furnished by other co-accused viz., Shambhu Lal and Bhanwar Singh and there is no mention of the statement made by Rajesh. (7). I have gone through the relevant evidence on record and I find that on analysis of the material available on record, it is clear that the learned Special Judge has committed a grave error in framing charge against the petitioner. There was no relevant material on record for framing the charge against the petitioner. Thus, in my considered opinion, no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence u/S. 8/20 of the Act. (8). I, therefore, accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 6.2.1996 whereby charge u/S. 8/20 of the NDPS Act was framed against the petitioner and discharge the accused-petitioner of the offence u/S. 8/20 of the NDPS Act.