JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - By the instant revision petition, under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioner has challenged order dated 21.02.2018, passed by Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court') framing charge against him for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to investigation into FIR No.37/2016, registered at Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar, charge-sheet is filed against petitioner for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. Learned trial Court, by the order impugned, framed charge against the petitioner under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that at the behest of accused-petitioner, an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was submitted for discharging him but the learned trial Court has not considered the said application, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that learned trial Court, while framing charge, has not afforded any opportunity of being heard to the accused-petitioner and even Public Prosecutor was not present when the charges were framed. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the learned trial Court has not even cared to record its prima facie satisfaction about involvement of the petitioner for aforesaid offence much less grave suspicion which is pre-requisite for framing charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. He has, therefore, urged that impugned order is absolutely vague and cryptic, which is not sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa [ (1996) 4 SCC 659 ]. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has defended the impugned order. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that at the stage of framing charge, Court is only required to see whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments at the Bar, perused the impugned order and other materials available on record. 6. True it is that at the stage of framing charge certainty of conviction cannot be examined, but the accused has every right to be heard at the stage of framing charge. Charge is essentially the foundation of entire trial and therefore, while framing charge, Court is required to apply its mind and not to act as a post-office. 7. 6. True it is that at the stage of framing charge certainty of conviction cannot be examined, but the accused has every right to be heard at the stage of framing charge. Charge is essentially the foundation of entire trial and therefore, while framing charge, Court is required to apply its mind and not to act as a post-office. 7. In the instant case, when there was an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner for discharging him, obviously, it was desirable from the learned trial Court to have examined prima facie material against him before framing charge. 8. In view thereof, while relying on the decision referred to supra, the order impugned cannot be sustained. Consequently, the same is set at naught and the matter is remanded back to learned trial Court for deciding the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner afresh and passing appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. 9. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.