Honble JAIN, J.–The accused appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 18/99 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in each offence under Section 8/18 and Section 19 to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1 lac. Both the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. In case accused fails to make the payment of the amount of fine then he will further undergo in each offence two years RI meaning thereby additional RI for 4 years. (2). The prosecution case in brief is that a complaint was filed by Central Narcotics Bureau against accused appellant in Court of Special Judge, NDPS case, Jhalawar under Section 8/18 and 8/19 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein it was alleged that the accused was holding a licence of cultivation of opium for the year 1998-99. During the period from 6.3.1999 to 23.3.1999 the daywise weighed of opium produce was mentioned in the daily weigh register duly signed by accused as well as opium Lambardar Raghunath Singh. The total weighment of the contraband during above period was 11.750 kg. However on 14.4.1999 the accused brought only 5.500 kg opium which was lesser in quantity by 6.250 kg. as per preliminary weighment register. The Inspector gave a written report about it and on that basis an order was passed to take legal action against accused. A team was constituted for taking action in the matter against accused. The team investigated the matter. During the investigation, the statement of the accused was also recorded. Thereafter the accused was arrested under Section 8/19 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The opium weighing 3.800 kg. was recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit P.4 by S.K. Singh in presence of 2 witnesses and Lambardar Raghunath Singh. The sample was taken and sent for chemical examination. Exhibit-P.5 dated 14.6.1999 is the report of the Chemical Examination wherein it was mentioned that sample is found by qualitative/quantitative analysis to be opium within the meaning of NDPS Act, 1985. (3). The learned Trial Court framed charge against accused under Section 8/18 and 8/19 of the Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. (3). The learned Trial Court framed charge against accused under Section 8/18 and 8/19 of the Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced documentary evidence. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he has not embezzled any opium. He further stated that no opium was recovered at his instance. He further stated that the officers of the Department gave threatening and inflicted injuries on his person and got his statement recorded. He did not give any statement voluntarily. (4). The learned Trial Court after hearing argument from both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. (5). The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. N.L. Gupta, Amicus Curiae contended that Exhibit P.6 daily weigh register containing weight of the opium is fabricated document. He contended that there is variance in the weighment of the opium entered in register on daily basis. On one day the weigh of opium has been mentioned as 100 gram and on another date it has been mentioned as 1200 gram and on another subsequent date 1500 grams. It was further contended that the weigh of the opium was not written by the Lambardar in the registered but it was written by son of the Lambardar Raghunath Singh. He further contended that charge framed against accused appellant is vague and illegal. The learned Trial Court did not consider that offence under Sections 18 and 19 are separate, independent and distinguishable with each other, therefore, a joint charge in both the sections could not have been framed. He further contended that neither date nor time, nor full particulars of the allegations have been mentioned in the charge and as such it is vague and in similar circumstances in Bindersing Nirmalsing Kalli & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (1) EFR 324, the Bombay High Court acquitted the accused only on this ground. He further contended that so far as Section 18 of the Act is concerned the appellant has wrongly been convicted as appellant was admittedly holding a licence, therefore, possession of any opium with him was natural and he could not have been convicted under Section 18 of the Act. He relied upon Bheru Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) WLC 289 (Raj.). He relied upon Bheru Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) WLC 289 (Raj.). He further contended that no notification giving any date of final weighment of the produce i.e., Opium was produced by the prosecution before the Court, therefore, there is a violation of Condition No. 4 of the licence issued under Rule 8 of the NDPS Rules, 1985. So far as confessional statement dated 14.4.1999 Exhibit P.3 is concerned, he contended that it was obtained under duress and as such it could not have been made basis for convicting the accused for the above offence. He contended that PW.3 Raghunath Singh admitted categorically in his cross- examination that severe beating was given to the accused. PW.3 was not declared hostile by the prosecution and as such his statement is binding on the prosecution. The accused also stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was severely beaten by the officers of the Department and obtained his signature on the statement recorded by them. The statement was not given voluntarily. He referred Charles Baggett Ravfield Wafford vs. Union of India, II (1994) CCR 1403, Smt. Taro vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (1) EFR 280, John Ohuma Ogmekwe and Anr. vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay & Anr. (1999 (1) EFR 107 and Raghubeer vs. State of U.P., 2001 Cri.L.J. 365 in support of his contention. He also contended that weighment of contraband was mentioned without its actual weigh as admitted by PW.3 Raghunath Singh Lambardar. PW.2 Vijay Singh also admitted in his statement that no weighing machine or scale were provided by the Department to the Lambardar. He referred Rule 13 and contended that provisions of Rule 13 are mandatory in nature and in the present case there is clear violation of Sub-rules 2, 4 and 5 of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1985. He also referred Rule 26 which is said to have been violated in the present case. He lastly contended that the so called recovery of opium from the possession of the appellant vide recovery memo Exhibit P.4 is concerned Raghunath Singh and Udai Singh were witnesses to it. PW.4 Udai Singh was declared hostile, and PW.3 Raghunath who was not even declared hostile; admitted specifically in his statement that no such recovery was made from the house of the appellant. (6). PW.4 Udai Singh was declared hostile, and PW.3 Raghunath who was not even declared hostile; admitted specifically in his statement that no such recovery was made from the house of the appellant. (6). The learned Counsel also contended that appellant was arrested on 14.4.1999 and since then i.e., for last 6 years 9 months, he is behind bar. The appellant was licence holder for cultivation of opium. The quantity of opium alleged to have been embezzled is not so large, therefore, the period of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone. (7). The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no violation of any provisions of the Act in the present case and finding of the Trial Court is based on evidence and no perversity or illegality has been pointed out in it, therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court is quite legal and does not call for any interference by this Court. (8). I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the Trial Court. (9). In Bindersing Nirmalsing Kalli & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the charge framed in that particular case as reproduced in the judgment and held as under:– ``The third and last submission made by Shri Daga relates to the defects in the charge framed at Exhibit 9. Clause (a) of the charge reads as under:– ``(a) That on 13.5.1996 at about 12.30 hours you were found in possession of 3.40 kgs. opium worth Rs. 4,300/- in contravention of the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and thereby an offence under Section 18 of the said Act. Shri Daga pointed out that the charge does not specify the place of offence. He further pointed out that although the raid in question was carried out between 00.30 hours and 2.30 AM, the charge mentions the time as 12.30 hours i.e., in the afternoon. Thirdly, as per the seizure panchnama the total opium found in 95 packets weighed 1.340 kgs. However, the charge mentions the weight as 3.40 kgs. The alternate charge at clause (c) mentions the weight of opium as 3.40 kgs. It will thus be seen that the charge framed at Exhibit 7 contains material errors and as such, it is defective. Thirdly, as per the seizure panchnama the total opium found in 95 packets weighed 1.340 kgs. However, the charge mentions the weight as 3.40 kgs. The alternate charge at clause (c) mentions the weight of opium as 3.40 kgs. It will thus be seen that the charge framed at Exhibit 7 contains material errors and as such, it is defective. Section 212 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. Section 215 of the Cr.P.C. states the effect of errors in charge. It reads : ``No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission stating the offence or those particulars shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice. Shri Daga contended before us that non-mentioning of the place of offence and mentioning of incorrect time as well as quantity of opium found have misled the accused and thereby a failure of justice has occasioned. It is surprising to find that the charge Exhibit 7 containing such patent errors and omissions. It only shows how in a slipshod manner the charge was framed against the accused. The object of framing a correct charge with necessary details is to enable him to meet the prosecution case and understand the exact allegation made against him. The errors pointed out in the charge Exhibit 7 are obvious and they are sufficient to mislead the accused and result in failure of justice. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the submission made by Shri Daga. (10). In Raghubeer vs. State of U.P. (supra), the Allahabad High Court considered the mandatory provisions of Rule 13 and held as under :– ``From a thorough examination of the evidence detailed above, it becomes absolutely clear that entries regarding weights made in the register, maintained by Lambardar, are not authentic. They are made on visual examination or on the representation of cultivators. So far as the appellant is concerned, PW. They are made on visual examination or on the representation of cultivators. So far as the appellant is concerned, PW. 1 is categorical in his statement that neither he had any scale to weigh the opium brought by the cultivators nor the appellant had any scale in his possession. Therefore, without any hitch I come to the conclusion that the entries regarding the appellant in the register maintained by Lambardar were all estimative and cannot be relied upon. They were made on the basis of imagination. Except Lambardar, who is an interested witness belonging to the Department, not a single witness from amongst the cultivators were produced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation that entries in the register of Lambardar were made after weighing. So far as PW.3 Brij Lal is concerned, his evidence also cannot be taken in corroboration of the statement of PW.1. It is admitted to PW.4 that no scales were provided to Lambardar. This witness has stated that he had weighed the opium brought by the cultivator on 4.4.1986 on the scale belonging to PW.1. This statement of his stand completely eliminated and falsified by the averments of PW.1 and PW.4. Evidence of any witness, who had interest in their case cannot be considered as sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant especially in the circumstances discussed above. Apart from this, all these witnesses have admitted unequivocally that no compliance of Sub- rule (5) of Rule 13 before launching the prosecution against the appellant was made by the Department. This is yet another reason why this appeal must succeed. As I have already held that the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 13 are mandatory in nature, the benefit on its violation has to go to the appellant. As already held, while interpreting Rules 13, 14 and 15 by me, that after the second weighment, i.e., the check weighment by a proper officer authorised by the Narcotics Commissioner in this connection, it does not deem proper that opium will be left in the custody of the cultivator without giving him a date and also specifying place for its deposit. As provided by Rules 14 and 15, they will have to be brought either by the cultivator himself as the specified destination on a specified date for further activities, such as delivery and despatch after weight, examination and verification to the opium factory. As provided by Rules 14 and 15, they will have to be brought either by the cultivator himself as the specified destination on a specified date for further activities, such as delivery and despatch after weight, examination and verification to the opium factory. No witness, especially PW.3. has not stated a word about it. This is also fatal for the prosecution. The rules for carry forward further indicates that prosecution is not a must in every case especially where prosecution has initially came with a case of variation in the weighed and subsequently took a case that the deposited opium was adulterated. In these circumstances it is not possible to delineate truth from the statement of prosecution witnesses. No enquiry apparently was undertaken against the appellant before filing charge-sheet in Court against him as required by law, as discussed earlier. (11). A perusal of charge framed against appellant on 6.8.1999 clearly shows that it does not specify the place of occurrence, the date, month and year and the time of commission of offence. No independent charge for each offence under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act has been framed against appellant. The accused was an illiterate person and agriculturist. The aforesaid deficiencies in the charge misled the accused and thereby failure of justice has occasioned. The object of framing the correct charge with necessary details is to enable him to meet the prosecution case and understand the exact allegation made against him. The errors pointed out in the charge are obvious and they are sufficient to mislead the accused and results in failure of justice. So far as variance of contraband made in the register Exhibit P.6 is concerned, the statement of PW.3 Raghunath Singh is very important in the present case. He admitted in his cross- examination that weight was written in the register on oral say of the cultivator. He further admitted that he did not write any weight in the register but his son used to write the same. The statement of PW.3 Raghunath Singh clearly shows that entries regarding weigh made in the register maintained by him are not authentic. They are made on visual examination or on the representation of the cultivator. He further admitted that he did not write any weight in the register but his son used to write the same. The statement of PW.3 Raghunath Singh clearly shows that entries regarding weigh made in the register maintained by him are not authentic. They are made on visual examination or on the representation of the cultivator. There was no scale provided with Lambardar to weigh the opium brought by the cultivators nor the appellant had any scale in his possession, therefore, it is clear that all entries made in the registers were estimative and cannot be relied upon. They were made on the basis of imagination. So far as recovery of contraband vide Exhibit P.4 is concerned PW.3 Raghunath who is prosecution witness, who was not even declared hostile by the prosecution specifically stated in his cross-examination that he is witness to site plan Exhibit P.7 also and no opium was recovered from the said house. PW.3 is also witness to the recovery memo Exhibit P.4. The another independent witness Ajay Singh PW.4 was declared hostile. So far as confessional statement is concerned, the same is admissible in evidence, but it has to be read with due care and cautious. In the prosecution evidence itself it is clear that beating was given on the person of accused and language of statement also shows that it was recorded by the department representative at his own, therefore, such statement cannot be made sole basis for conviction of the accused. (12). Rules 13 and 26 of the NDPS Rules of 1985 are also relevant in the present case. As per Sub-rule 2 of Rule 13 the Lambardar shall make arrangements to weigh such opium and make necessary entries in the records to be maintained by him as may be specified by the Narcotics Commissioner in this behalf. Sub-rule 3 says that the cultivator and the Lambardar shall attest such entries made in the records under their signature/thumb impression with date, showing the quantity weighed on a particular day. As per Sub-rule 4 the proper officer shall conduct check weighment of the opium collected by the cultivators with reference to the entries in the Lambardars record and indicate his finding therein which shall be attested by him and the Lambardar under their signature with date. As per Sub-rule 4 the proper officer shall conduct check weighment of the opium collected by the cultivators with reference to the entries in the Lambardars record and indicate his finding therein which shall be attested by him and the Lambardar under their signature with date. Rule 26 clearly indicates that the weights and scales to be used for weighing the opium at the weighment centres and the Government Opium Factory shall be caused to be examined at the appropriate time by the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner or the General Manager, as the case may be. The facts of the present case as borne out from the statement of PW.2 Vijay Singh and PW.3 Raghunath Singh show that all entries made in the weighment register Exhibit P.6 were estimative and imaginary. The scale to weigh the contraband was not provided to Lambardar PW.3 Raghunath Singh by the Department nor accused was having any scale or weight. The officer did not check and attest the preliminary weighment of the opium entered in the register. Therefore, it is clear that there is total non- compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules 13 and 26 of the Rules of 1985 in this case. (13). In view of above discussion and reasons I find that the learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and wrongly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. Consequently, I allow the appeal of the appellant and set aside his conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The accused appellant be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.