JUDGMENT 1. - Defect is over-ruled. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of revision petition. 3. This revision petition is directed against impugned order dated 29.3.2010 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 23/2009, whereby learned trial Court discharged the accused-respondent from offence under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The case of the prosecution against the respondent was that at the time of checking of slipper of accused-respondent, 230 grams of Charas was recovered from his slipper. When the matter came up for arguments for framing charge, learned trial Court after considering material available on record and examining the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that accused was in custody of police itself from 23.9.2009 to 26.9.2009 and as per Visitor's Register, maintained by jail authorities for relatives etc., who come for meeting the accused persons, there was no entry that anybody came and met the accused during that period. The best evidence, in the present case, was an entry in the Register, but nobody came and met the accused during that period, therefore, learned trial Court came to a conclusion that so-called admission of the accused, which was otherwise not admissible and there was no explanation by the prosecution in respect of Visitor's Register maintained by Jailer for visitors, to prove how the contraband came and pasted in the slipper of the accused. 5. The sole submission of learned Public Prosecutor is that during investigation accused himself admitted that he exchanged his slipper from his one relative and that evidence should be believed and it should be presumed that it is a case of conscious possession of contraband and it was in the knowledge of the accused and he should not have been discharged from the charge under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. 6. Learned trial Court has considered this aspect and observed that there was no entry in the Register that during the period from 23.9.2009 to 26.9.2009 anybody came and met the accused, therefore, only on the basis of so-called admission of the accused, a charge cannot be framed. Framing of the charge is not a mere formality and judicial mind is required to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge. 7. Framing of the charge is not a mere formality and judicial mind is required to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge. 7. In my view, the reasoning assigned by the trial Court for discharge of accused respondent appear to be absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for by this Court. 8. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Revision dismissed. *******