JUDGMENT 1. - Accused of having committing an offence under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (henceforth to be referred as the N.D.P.S. Act in short), the petitioner has challenged the cognizance order dated 13.9.2005 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Chabra, District Baran. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.7.2005, the S.H.O. Shri Sudhir Kumar Yadav P.S. Harnoda Sahaji, District Baran, submitted a report wherein he stated that while he and his police party were out on inspection in Taragarh valley, they saw two persons walking with plastic white bag. When these two persons saw the Police Jeep, they started running, therefore, the police chased them. Constable, Dharmendra Singh, caught one of the men, who revealed his name as Vinod Kumar. Since Vinod Kumar did not know the name of the other person, he could not reveal the same to the police. When the said plastic bag was searched, it contained almost 4 kgs. of opium including the weight of plastic bag. Since, Vinod Kumar could not show any license, therefore, the police registered a case for offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to the S.H.O. Jodha Ram, P.S. Chipa Barod. After a thorough investigation, having recorded the statement of eye-witnesses, the police submitted a detailed negative Final Report. According to the police, Bhoora Lal and Urmila Bai had taken their goats for grazing in the area where Vinod was caught. According to their statement, Vinod is a shepherd boy from their village who was also grazing his goats alongwith them. Both of them, alongwith Vinod, saw a man running with a white plastic bag. The man threw away the plastic bag. Vinod, being curious, went and picked up the bag and started looking into it. It is at the moment that the police party arrived and caught Vinod with the bag in his hand. According to them Vinod told the police that he had picked up the bag from the ground and the bag did not belong to him. However, despite his explanation, the police had arrested him for offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Believing these eye-witnesses and the statement of other villagers, who corroborated these eye-witnesses, the police submitted the said negative Final Report. However, despite his explanation, the police had arrested him for offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Believing these eye-witnesses and the statement of other villagers, who corroborated these eye-witnesses, the police submitted the said negative Final Report. However without discussing the negative Final Report in detail, vide impugned order dated 13.9.2005, the learned Special Judge took cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that according to the statements of Bhoora Ram and Urmila Bai and according to the statements of the other villagers, including the sarpanch, the petitioner is merely a shepherd boy who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Every morning he takes his goats out for grazing and it is only his curiosity that has landed him in trouble with the police. He has further contended that the police had recorded the statement of eye-witnesses, like Bhoora Ram and Urmila Bai, both of whom had deposed about the petitioner's innocence. Secondly after the police had submitted the negative Final Report, there was no protest petition and no further evidence to make out a case, even in a prima facie manner against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has committed an illegality in taking cognizance against him. Thirdly, once the negative Final Report was submitted, the learned Special Judge was legally bound to reveal reasons for non-accepting of the negative Final Report. However, the learned Special Judge has not revealed any reasons in the' impugned order for non-acceptance of the negative Final Report. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Sharma, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the defence that the Vinod is an innocent by standard who, out of curiosity, had picked up the bag is a defence propounded by the accused. At this stage of taking cognizance, the defence cannot be accepted. Therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in taking the cognizance, notwithstanding the negative Final Report. 5. We have heard both the counsels for the parties and have scanned the negative Final Report and the other documents available on record. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that a cognizance order is a revisionable order. Therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in taking the cognizance, notwithstanding the negative Final Report. 5. We have heard both the counsels for the parties and have scanned the negative Final Report and the other documents available on record. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that a cognizance order is a revisionable order. Since, the Sessions Court or the High Court is legally bound to examine the validity of the cognizance order, it is essential that the application of the judicial mind should be clearly revealed in the order itself. Hence, while disagreeing with the negative Final Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate should give reasons for his disagreeing with the negative Final Report. In case he does not state such reasons, the Sessions Court and the High Court are at a loss to search for the reasons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 SCC (Cri.) 376 and recently this Court in the case of Gopal Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2005 (10) RDD 4197 have clearly stated that the law enjoins a duty on Court to scrupulously scrutinise the Final Report submitted by the police while taking cognizance in order to determine whether cognizance ought to be taken or not. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate should state reasons for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. Therefore, it does not behove the learned Magistrate to merely record that "the negative Final Report is unacceptable" or "that the defence stated by the police shall be determined and decided during the trial". Such reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate are merely conclusions and not reason for their rejecting the negative Final Report. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate should desist from recording these one-line statements. 7. In the present case, both the eye-witnesses Bhoora Ram and Urmila Bai, have clearly stated that Vinod is a shepherd boy like them. On 7.7.2005, Vinod had accompanied them alongwith his goats. When they were grazing their goats around 11 to 12 O'clock, they saw two men in pant and shirt running. One of them had a white plastic bag in his hand. The policemen were running after these persons, the person with the bag threw away the bag and descended the valley towards Chandanpura, Vinod went up to the bag and opened it and peered into the bag. One of them had a white plastic bag in his hand. The policemen were running after these persons, the person with the bag threw away the bag and descended the valley towards Chandanpura, Vinod went up to the bag and opened it and peered into the bag. It is at that moment that the police party reached at the spot and caught Vinod with the bag in his hand. They further claim that both of them went to the police party. They further stated that they alongwith Vinod told the police party that the bag does not belong to Vinod. Therefore, the opium, which is in the bag, does not belong to Vinod. The statement of the eye-witnesses cannot be said to be a defence story, but is valid justification given at the spot at the spur of the moment. These statements alongwith other persons from the village clearly reveal the petitioner's innocence. It is on the basis of these statements that the police had validly concluded that the petitioner is innocent and he had committed no offence under N.D.P.S. Act. Thus, the police had submitted a negative Final Report. Interestingly, there is no other evidence, no protest petition, no further statement recorded by the Court which would lead us to believe that the petitioner is involved in the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Special Judge has merely stated that the story of innocence is a defence story, which can be tried and tested during trial. However, the learned Special Judge has ignored the fact that there are statements of independent eye-witnesses, which knock the bottom out of the prosecution case. Since, the police was convinced of the petitioner's innocence, it was imperative for the learned Special Judge to give reasons for disagreeing with the conclusion drawn by the police. However, in the instant case, the learned Special Judge has not done so. 8. In the result, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.9.2005 and remand the case back to the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Chabra, District Baran to consider and discuss the negative Final Report submitted by the police and only then, to pass the cognizance order, if any, in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******