JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Mohammed Sabir s/o Abdul Bashir , r/o Kalu Ramji-ki-Babri, Soorsagar, Jodhpur against the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh passed in Criminal Case No.40/2008 whereby the learned Special Judge, framed charges against the petitioner for offence under section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 09.03.2003 one FIR was lodged at Police Station Badi-Sadri , District Chittorgarh on the written complaint made by complainant Hari Ram, wherein it was alleged that he is the licence holder of Theka Doda- Chura (Poppy )Husk) having its shop and godown at Badi -Sadri for the year 2002-2003, situated at Gopal Nagar. It was further stated that Guards were deputed for security and in the night at about 01.00 AM the Guards informed that thieves have broken the lock of the godown and they are loading doda-chura bags in the truck bearing No.RJ-19-9961. On receiving this message the complainant, along with his neighbor, rushed to the godown. The police chased the truck and caught the truck along with its driver Sohan Ram and cleaner Om Prakash and 43 bags of opium poppy husk were recovered . Sohan Ram informed that Hari Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Laxman Singh are also involved in the commission of the crime and the truck was owned by petitioner Mohammed Sabir. 3. During investigation, police issued notice to the petitioner under section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to which reply was filed by the petitioner stating that the truck in question was originally registered in the name of Devi Chand, which was then purchased by him and the said truck was driven by Sohan Lal and the driver had taken the truck on hire for carrying out his personal business. The police recorded the statement of the petitioner under section 161 Cr.P.C. The police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the main accused and also against the petitioner under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 4. The learned Special Judge , NDPS, Cases, Chittorgarh vide order dated 09.11.2010 framed charges against the petitioner under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the said order dated 09.11.2010 the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. 4. The learned Special Judge , NDPS, Cases, Chittorgarh vide order dated 09.11.2010 framed charges against the petitioner under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the said order dated 09.11.2010 the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of framing charge by the learned trial court dated 09.11.2010 cannot be sustained because at the relevant time, the petitioner who was the owner of the vehicle, was not there and under the provisions of section 25 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the knowledge is essential for permitting any other person to use the vehicle for commission of offence under the NDPS Act and in this particular case, no such knowledge can be inferred on the part of the present petitioner and, therefore, the learned trial court erred in ordering to frame the charge against the petitioner under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 6. I have perused the record. 7. Interrogation with the present petitioner was made by the Investigating Officer and as per the investigation report the present petitioner told Sohan Ram to meet Bhanwar Singh because the rental charges in Nimbahera are excessive, therefore, looking to this fact, there is sufficient ground to frame the charge against the petitioner. 8. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has wrong view of the law or misappropriated the evidence on record. 9. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case. 10. Interference in exercise of the powers under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally passed the order. 11. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******