Judgment A.L. Dave, J.—The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B), 22 & 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [‘NDPS Act’ for short] by judgment and order dated 20.06.2003 rendered by the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 268/2002, as per the details given below:— 1.1. The appellant-accused is sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, i/d, to undergo R.I for one and a half months for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of NDPS Act, R.I for ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, i/d, R.I for one and a half months for the offence punishable under Section 22 of NDPS Act, and R.I for ten years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, i/d, R.I for one and a half months for the offence punishable under Section 23 of NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was found to be carrying 900 grams of charas in a bag carried by him on 11.10.2002, near the New Cloth Market area of Ahmedabad. The samples were drawn in the presence of the panch witnesses, the contraband was seized and the appellant was apprehended. The FIR was lodged with Kagdapith Police Station of Ahmedabad City, and ultimately, charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court. 3. Charge was framed against the appellant-accused at Exh.1. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. The trial Court found that the evidence proved the appellant-accused to be in possession of the said contraband and recorded his conviction, as stated hereinabove. 4. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal for the appellant, and learned A.P.P. Mr.Bhatt for the respondent-State. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal has raised the following points to assail the impugned judgment;— (1) There is perversity while framing the points for determination by the trial Court in the judgment. (2) There is perversity in the operative part of the judgment. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal for the appellant, and learned A.P.P. Mr.Bhatt for the respondent-State. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal has raised the following points to assail the impugned judgment;— (1) There is perversity while framing the points for determination by the trial Court in the judgment. (2) There is perversity in the operative part of the judgment. (3) Further Statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is defective, in the sense that certain material relied on by the trial Court while recording conviction was not brought to the notice of the accused while recording his further statement under section 313 CrPC, and that the questions put to the accused- appellant under Section 313 CrPC, are complex and multiple questions in one question making it difficult for the person to understand which circumstance was sought to be used against him by the Court. 5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal also raised certain grounds, like, defect in the charge etc. on merits of the case, and submitted that the decision making process by the trial Court would get vitiated because of the above-referred to defects. He also submitted that the right of the accused to explain the circumstances against him, would be prejudiced because of the defect while recording further statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 6. We have heard learned A.P.P. Mr.Bhatt on the question of the prejudice to the accused in view of the defect in formulation of questions while recording his further statement under Section 313 CrPC. 7. We are convinced about the argument advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal that the further statement of the accused recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC, fails to meet its purpose and as a consequence, right of the accused is prejudiced. On a plain reading of the further statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it is clear that the questions put to the accused contain multiple facts in the form of complex sentences. The accused, therefore, may or may not be in a position to understand the question properly, or to answer it appropriately. Such complexity has to be avoided. On a plain reading of the further statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it is clear that the questions put to the accused contain multiple facts in the form of complex sentences. The accused, therefore, may or may not be in a position to understand the question properly, or to answer it appropriately. Such complexity has to be avoided. The questions put or the circumstances sought to be relied upon by the trial Court against the accused have to be brought to the notice of the accused, distinctly and specifically to enable him to give suitable reply, if he so chose to do. 7.1. It is also to be kept in mind that the circumstance, which is not brought to the notice of the accused while recording his further statement under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used as a circumstance against him while recording conviction. In the instant case, we notice that in the entire further statement under Section 313 CrPC, the report from FSL has not been brought to the notice of the accused to enable him to explain the circumstance against him, which has been used by the trial Court while recording conviction. Therefore, a prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused. We are, therefore, of the view that though the trial may not be vitiated, the decision making process from the stage of recording of further Statement under Section 313 CrPC, was certainly affected/vitiated and it cannot be permitted to stand. 8. In view of the above situation, we are inclined to entertain this appeal by setting aside the further statement recorded by the trial Court under Section 313 of CrPC, as well as setting aside the judgment and order regarding conviction of the appellant, and remand the case to the trial Court for recording the further statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 of CrPC, afresh by putting simple and non-complex questions to the accused or by bringing the circumstances sought to be used against the accused, in simple language and expression, bringing each circumstance to the notice of the accused distinctly and separately. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal raised points about the defects in framing points for determination and recording evidence and awarding sentences in the judgment. He also has several other points to argue. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal raised points about the defects in framing points for determination and recording evidence and awarding sentences in the judgment. He also has several other points to argue. However, we do not propose to go into such questions on merits of the case for the reason that the case is remanded to the trial Court for de novo trial from the stage of recording of further statement under Section 313 of CrPC, and decision afresh. 9.1. The trial Court shall record further statement of the accused afresh and then decide the case after hearing both the sides on merits of the case, since we have expressed no opinion on the points raised before us other than the defect in statement under Section 313 of CrPC. So far as the defects in operative part of the judgment and in the points for determination are concerned, we are sure that the trial Court will hear both the sides on the above aspects on merits and render its decision afresh strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.06.2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City, recording conviction of the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B), 22 & 23 of the NDPS Act, in Sessions Case No. 268/2002, is hereby set aside. The Registry shall forward the record and proceedings of the case, along with a copy of this order, to the trial Court, and upon receipt of the same, the trial Court shall record further statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, hear the learned advocates of the parties on all points those may be raised, and render its decision afresh strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the record and proceedings of the case.