JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Dausa in Sessions Case No. 61/2012, whereby the charge under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act has been framed against the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 61/2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: “An FIR No. 76/2010 was registered at Police Station Sivani, District Bhivani, Haryana for the offence under Sections 15, 27A, 29, 30 of NDPS Act and sections 109, 120B IPC, in which it was stated that a truck and Santro Car were allegedly intercepted on 31.5.2010 by Police Personnel of P.S. Sivani, where along-with three persons sitting in the said vehicle namely Rajendra, Sunil and Raju, 47 bags of poppy-straw were recovered. Aside of Rajendra, Sunil and Raju, Umesh alleged to be the purchaser, Amar Singh, relative of Sunil, Surajmal, who had allegedly made the cabin of the truck, Kishan Chand the owner of the truck and the Jaspal, who got the truck financed were also made as an accused along-with the petitioner. The petitioner namely Tofiq @ Naresh @ Tomy was also made an accused, who was alleged to be the Contractor, who supplied the poppy-straw. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and charges were framed against accused Rajendra, Raju and Sunil for the offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act, while charges were framed against accused Surajmal, Jaspal, Tofiq, Umesh and Amar Singh under Section 27A, 29 of NDPS Act as well as under Section 109 and 120B of IPC. The said case tried as Sessions Case No. 3/2010 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhivani, resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. Thereafter on disclosure statement of Sunil, the co-accused in FIR No. 76/2010, P.S. Sivani, who had stated that he had purchased the poppy-straw from one Naresh, stated to be the Contractor, Plot No. 61 in Vapi, RIICO Industrial area, Dausa was searched on 5.6.2010 by Jagat Singh, I.O. of FIR No. 76/2010, in which it was mentioned that there a godown was found locked and a mill for crushing poppy-straw was found and as per the disclosure statement of Sunil, he had purchased 47 sack of poppy-straw from Contractor Naresh on 31.5.2010. The said go-down was checked and 120 bags of poppy-straw were found and the poppy-straw which had been milled was found in three sacks. The said go-down was checked and 120 bags of poppy-straw were found and the poppy-straw which had been milled was found in three sacks. In respect of the said search, another FIR No. 62/2010 was registered at P.S. Sainthal, District Dausa. On the said FIR, investigation was conducted and a negative final report was submitted. After the F.R., notice was issued to the complainant Jagat Singh, I.O. of FIR No. 76/2010 in P.S. Sivani, who filed a protest petition. After re-investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner finding the offence under Section 8/15 to have been made out against Naresh @ Tofiq @ Tomy. Thereafter cognizance was taken and charges were framed on 8.10.2014. Against the said order dated 8.10.2014 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Dausa, this revision petition was preferred." 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the trial court while framing the charge against the accused petitioner has not considered the earlier F.R. No. 31/2010. The F.R. was submitted on the ground that the premises were duly licensed and the record of poppy straw showed that there was no shortage and no offence was stated to be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the earlier submitted Final Report and the other material of investigation were not considered by the court below at the time of framing of the charge. He has further contended that the poppy straw was found from the premises being Plot No. F-74A of RIICO Industrial Area, Vapi, Dausa and therefore, inasmuch as the poppy-straw was found from the licensed premises. In view of above, the alleged offence is not made out against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel has further contended and mentioned in sub-para (E) of his revision petition that if it be the case that there was a breach of condition of license inasmuch as licensee was Tara Chand, then also the said case would have been completely covered under Section 26 of the NDPS Act. He has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 245 (ii) Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2005) 5 SCC 258 (iii) Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and ors. He has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 245 (ii) Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2005) 5 SCC 258 (iii) Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1 (iv) State of Karnataka v. G. Lakshman and others reported in 1993 Cri. L.J. 2331 . 5. In the last, he has requested that this revision petition should be allowed and the impugned order, qua petitioner, should be quashed and set-aside. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel has contended that if the Court is not going to quash the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the court below, in such circumstances, liberty should be given to him to move an application under Section 216 CrPC before the trial court and the direction should be given to the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand, learned PP has opposed the same and contended that the trial court has rightly passed the order dated 8.10.2014, where he had discussed and answered each and every question in detail, which has been raised by the petitioner through this revision petition and no interference is required by this court. She has further contended that there is no question of law or question of fact mentioned by the petitioner in his revision petition, on the basis of which the impugned order should be quashed and set-aside. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the court below. 9. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the court below. 9. I am in agreement with the observations made by the court below, the relevant part whereof is reproduced as under: " i=koyh ij miyC/k mDr lk{; ls ;g izFken'"V~;k tkfgj gS fd ckih b.MLV~h;y ,fj;k fLFkr ftl IykV ls MksMk iksLr cjken fd;k x;k mls vfHk;qDr rksfQd mQZ ujs'k }kjk fdjk;s ij fy;k x;k Fkk rFkk MksMk iksLr ds dz; & fodz; dk dk;Z vfHk;qDr gh laHkkyrk Fkk] cjkenxh LFky vfHk;qDr ds dCts esa Fkk vkSj vfHk;qDr ds lpsr dCts ls MksMk iksLr cjken gqvkA vfHk;qDr ds ikl MksMk iksLr dCts esa j[kus dk dksbZ vuqKk i= jgk gks& ,slh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gS rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls Hkh ,slk ugha dgk x;k gS fd og vuqKk/kkjh gksA mijksDr xokgksa dh lk{; ls ;g Hkh izdV gS fd vfHk;qDr dks ujs'k uke ls Hkh tkuk o iqdkjk tkrk FkkA i=koyh esa vij lS'ku U;k;ky; fHkokuh ds lS'ku izdj.k la[;k 03@2010 jkT; fo:) jktsUnz vkfn ds fu.kZ; fnukad 10-05-2013 dh izfrfyfi miyC/k gS] ftlesa Hkh vfHk;qDr dk uke rksfQQ mQZ ujs'k mQZ Vkseh gksuk fy[kk x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa bl LVst ij ;g rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fd vfHk;qDr dk ujs'k uke ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gksA fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr }kjk ;g rdZ Hkh fn;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr dks vuqKk/kkjh rkjkpUn dk ukSdj Hkh eku fy;k tkos rks vf/kd ls vf/kd /kkjk 8@26 Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu%izzHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e dk vkjksi gh fojfpr fd;k tk ldrk gSA esjs er esa bl LVst ij fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd iwoZ esa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur vkosnu dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;s rdZ fn;s x;s fd vfHk;qDr vuqKk/kkjh rkjkpUn dk ukSdj Hkh ugha Fkk vkSj vfHk;qDr ds uke dk dksbZ ukSdjukek Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] vr% vuqKk/kkjh rkjkpUn dk vfHk;qDr ukSdj gksuk bl LVst ij izFken'"V~;k lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dh LVst ij lk{; dh izFke n'"V~;k fLFkfr gh ns[kuh gksrh gS] bl LVst ij vfHk;kstu i{k dh lk{; dk lw{erk ls ewY;kadu o xq.kkoxq.k ij foospu fd;k tkuk fof/klEer ugha gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls izFke n'"V~;k ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr ds dCts'kqnk IykV uEcj ,Q 74, ls 120 cksjksa esa 4800 fdyksxzke fcuk filk MksMk iksLr rFkk 38 fdyksxzke MksMk iksLr dk pwjk filk gqvk voS/k :i ls cjken gqvk] ftls vius dCts esa j[kus dk vfHk;qDr ds ikl dksbZ vuqKk i= ugha Fkk] vfHk;qDr ds fo:) Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8@15 dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gSaA vr% vfHk;qDr rksfQQ vyh mQZ ujs'k mQZ Vksuh ds fo:) /kkjk 8@15 Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA " 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to accept this revision petition and hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed after confirming the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the trial court. 11. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that if he so desires, he can move an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court below and if such an application is filed, then the court below is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. 12. Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.Revision along with stay application dismissed. *******