ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 20.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, Chittorgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.16/2009, whereby it has framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh has registered an FIR No.227/2008 against one Ghamanda Ram for the offence punishable under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and section 279 IPC with the allegation that at 6:00 A.M., police received an information that a tanker bearing No.RJ- 09-G-2970 had collided with a shop near Senthi, Udaipur Road, Chittorgarh. After receiving the said information, S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Chittorgarh reached the spot and searched the cabin of the tanker, where on the back seat of the driver a polythene bag containing 5 kgs. of poppy husk was recovered. Driver Ghamnda Ram was arrested by the police and during the course of investigation, the police had received an information that the petitioner is the registered owner of the tanker from which the contraband was recovered. A notice under section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the petitioner, who informed the police that at the relevant date and time, the tanker was being driven by driver Ghamanda Ram. The police after conclusion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Cognizance was also taken against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence along with driver Ghamnda Ram, against whom cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act read with section 279 IPC. 3. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act vide order dated 10.04.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.04.2014 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.542/2014 before this Court, however, this Court vide order 09.07.2014 quashed the order dated 10.04.2014 and remanded the matter back to the trial court for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the material available on record against the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.04.2014 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.542/2014 before this Court, however, this Court vide order 09.07.2014 quashed the order dated 10.04.2014 and remanded the matter back to the trial court for passing a fresh order after taking into consideration the material available on record against the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.07.2014, the trial court after hearing counsel for the petitioner has passed the orders dated 20.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 and framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Hence, this criminal revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to suggest that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, from which the illegal poppy husk was recovered, had knowingly permitted the driver-Ghamanda Ram to use the said vehicle for the purpose of transportation of illegal poppy husk. It is argued that in the absence of any evidence available on record of this effect, the trial court has grossly erred in framing the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. It is contended that even during the course of investigation, the driver had informed the police that he received 5 kgs. of poppy husk from an unknown person on the highway and from this, it is clear that the petitioner had no knowledge that the driver - Ghamnda Ram had procured the said illegal poppy husk and was transporting the same in the vehicle owned by him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a transporter and is the owner of the various vehicles and never given permission to the drivers of the vehicles owned by him to carry out any illegal activity. It is also argued that the trial court has grossly erred in holding that a registered owner of the commercial vehicle has to place on record the evidence reflecting factum of no knowledge on the part of the owner about his own vehicle having been used by his own driver for illicit purposes or outside the course of employment. It is also argued that the trial court has grossly erred in holding that a registered owner of the commercial vehicle has to place on record the evidence reflecting factum of no knowledge on the part of the owner about his own vehicle having been used by his own driver for illicit purposes or outside the course of employment. It is submitted that it is for the prosecution to prima facie prove that the illegal activity is carried out by the driver of commercial vehicle with the consent or knowledge of the owner then only the burden shifts upon the owner of the vehicle to rebut the allegation of the prosecution that the driver of the vehicle owned by him was carrying illegal activity with his knowledge/consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the trial court has illegally placed burden on the petitioner to prove his innocence though the prima facie burden of proving the fact that the petitioner had knolwedge about the illegal activities committed by his driver is upon the prosecution and when the prosecution has failed to produce any material of this effect on record, the trial court has erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 6. Section 25 of the NDPS Act reads as under: "25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.- Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence." 7. As per the provision of section 25 of the NDPS Act, if an owner of a conveyance knowingly permits the said conveyance to be used for the commission of an offence punishable under any provision of the NDPS Act by any other person shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the tanker involved in the accident had a valid national permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident. On 28.04.2008, the empty tanker met with an accident in which the driver Ghamanda Ram got injured, the police has recovered illegal 5 kgs. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the tanker involved in the accident had a valid national permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident. On 28.04.2008, the empty tanker met with an accident in which the driver Ghamanda Ram got injured, the police has recovered illegal 5 kgs. of poppy husk from the back seat of the driver. During the course of investigation, the driver had informed the police that he procured the said poppy husk from an unknown person on highway. The police has failed to produce any evidence along with charge-sheet to the effect that the driver of the vehicle Ghamanda Ram was transporting 5 kgs. of poppy husk with permission of the petitioner or the owner of the tanker, the petitioner, had any knowledge about the transportation of the said poppy husk by his driver. 9. It is true that at the stage of framing of charge, the roving and fishing inquiry is not permissible and the defence of the accused cannot be put forth but at the same time, the initial burden of proving a prima facie case is upon the investigating agency or the prosecution and when the investigating agency has failed to place any material on record to prove that the petitioner had any knowledge about the transportation of illegal poppy husk by his driver in his vehicle, it cannot be said that there is any material to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 10. Having considered the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, I am of the opinion that there is no iota of evidence available to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 11. Hence, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders dated 20.09.2016 and 03.10.2016 passed by Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, Chittorgarh are set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the offence punishable under section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Stay petition stands disposed of.