Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Order taking cognizance under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short the Act) has been called in question by the accused-petitioner by filing the instant petition. 2. Mr. S.P. Tyagi, learned Counsel canvassed that only evidence against the petitioner is the confessional statement of co accused which is not at all a legal or substantive evidence and is inadmissible. Reliance was placed on Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr LR (Raj) 176 : 1995 CriLJ 2027. Mr. Poddar learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. 3. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the impugned order. 4. A look at certified copy of the impugned order annexed with the petition goes to show that the learned trial Court passed the impugned order mechanically. Even the section of the N.D.P.S. Act under which learned Court took cognizance has not been indicated. The order reads thus. Þi=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izFke n`"V;k vijk/k ik;s tkus ij eqyfteksa nksuksa mijksDr ds f[kykQ ,u-Mh- ih- ,l- ,DV esa izlaKku fy;k tkrk gSAß 5. It is well settled that so long cognizance is not taken, a case cannot be said to be established that Court takes cognizance of the offence and not of the offenders. Cognizance under the provisions of the NDPS Act cannot be allowed to be taken in a mechanical way. An order without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the material on record and without recording even brief reasons as to why prima face case against the accused is made out is totally illegal and such exercise amounts to abuse of process of Court. 6. In view of what I have discussed above the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. Resultantly, thepetition succeeds and is hereby allowed the impugned order stands set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Court below for passing a judicial order in view of the observations made hereinabove.