JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.7.2011 whereby the cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences under Section 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and standing warrant has been issued. 2. Brief facts of the case are that. on 11.10.2010 the police made a search of Scorpio vehicle No. GJ 5 CS-8584 and found 10 gunny begs of poppy husk and recovered total 3 quintals 99 kgs. 450 gms. Poppy husk. F.I.R. has been registered under the N.D.P.S. Act and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the present petitioner for the said offences under Section 299, Cr.P.C. on the ground that he is the registered owner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the present petitioner is that the order of cognizance is per-se illegal as charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and other co-accused on 22.4.2011, but on that day cognizance has not been taken against the present petitioner and on 25.7.2011 cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner which is against the settled provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. There is no dispute about the above proposition that once cognizance has been taken against some of the accused persons, subsequent cognizance on the same evidence cannot be taken, The only course open for the trial Court was at the stage of Section 319. Hence, the cognizance order deserves to be set aside. 6. The other contention of the present petitioner is that he was the registered owner of the vehicle but he sold out it to M/s. Galaxy Toyota, New Delhi on 23.5.2010. The police had gave him notice under Section 133, N.D.P.S. (sic Motor Vehicles) Act, and the petitioner had specifically replied that he was the registered owner of the vehicle but he had sold it to M/s Galaxy Toyota, New Delhi on 23.6.2010 and receipt has also been given to the Investigating Officer but in spite of this evidence, the Investigating Officer has mala-fidely presented a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act in his absence and the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. labelled him as absconding accused. 7. 7. Bare perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that notice under Section 133, N.D.P.S. Act has been given to the present petitioner and in reply to it, the present petitioner has specifically stated that he had sold the vehicle to M/s. Galaxy Toyota, New Delhi and receipt and statement of accounts have also been placed before the Investigating Officer, which is part of the papers filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., but no investigation has been done on these papers. Hence, there is no evidence against the present petitioner that he knowingly permitted to use the vehicle for the commission of any offence which is punishable under the N.DP.S. Act, rather, it has been specifically placed before the Investigating Officer that the vehicle has been sold long back in June, 2010 to M/s. Galaxy Toyota, New Delhi. Hence, there is no evidence against the present petitioner to book him for the offence under Section 8/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, hence, the impugned order dated 25.7.2011 deserves to be quashed. 8. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.7.2011 is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. 9. It has been specifically came to the notice of this Court that the present petitioner has been mala-fidely and falsely implicated in the present case, hence, a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police to conduct appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the erring Investigating Officer.Petition allowed. *******