JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 4476 of 2019 1. During pendency of instant revision application, this interlocutory application has been filed for amendment in the prayer portion of the main application by substituting sentence “for setting aside the order dated 18.05.2016 whereby the charge was framed under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment sought for is formal in nature and will not change the nature and character of the revision petition. It has further been submitted that if the amendment, sought for, is not allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 3. Counsel for the respondent does not raise any serious objection to the prayer made in the interlocutory application. 4. I have gone through the contents mentioned in the interlocutory application and having been satisfied with, this interlocutory application is allowed and order dated 18.05.2016 is hereby substituted in place of 05.03.2014 (order rejecting the petition for discharge). Cr. Revision No.418 of 2014 1. The instant application is directed against the order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in N.D.P.S. Case No.6 of 2012 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case no.39 of 2012, whereby the learned court below has rejected the petition for discharge. 2. As per the allegation alleged in the FIR i.e. Latehar P.S. Case No.39 of 2012 which was registered under Section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. On the basis of written application of S.I., Latehar alleging therein that on 21.03.2012 when a police party was on patrolling duty and was checking the vehicles, at about 1.00 p.m. near Pataki camp the accused/petitioner, Nawal Singh who was on motorcycle on seeing the police party tried to flee away but intercepted by the police and search was made in which one plastic polythene containing 150 gm mixture of Ganja was recovered for which no valid paper was produced. Therefore, the substance as recovered was seized and seizure list was prepared on being asked the petitioner said that aforesaid mixture has been purchased from Girdhari Singh of village Rahima. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and FIR was registered and the copy of seizure list was handed over to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Therefore, the substance as recovered was seized and seizure list was prepared on being asked the petitioner said that aforesaid mixture has been purchased from Girdhari Singh of village Rahima. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and FIR was registered and the copy of seizure list was handed over to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that from perusal of letter no.286 dated 24.04.2012 issued by the Director, F.S.L., Ranchi it shows that substance material has been sent to F.S.L., Ranchi vide memo no.172 dated 05.04.2012 and it was written for removal of the defects and after that defect was removed and substance material has been detected to be a Bhang and said “Bhang was a leaf of plant Cannabis Sativa and contains tetrahdrocannabinol (THC) as its main intoxicating ingredient. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Bhang admittedly does not come within the definition of Section 2(iii) as it is neither Charas nor Ganja nor mixture of any of the above forms of Cannabis from which prepared therefrom as such the learned trial court even recording the contents of the letter dated 24.04.2012 that the seized material wherein 150 grams was Bhang and the same is easily available in the open market, has rejected the petition for discharge while holding that there is a sufficient material to proceed further in the case to frame charge under Section 20(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act and under Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and finally rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of CrPC. 4. Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, the learned APP has relied on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of State. He further submits that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned order which requires any interference by this Court. He further submits that during investigation the statement of witnesses have been recorded and in para nos.10, 11 and 32 of the case diary, which supports the prosecution case. The place of occurrence has been mentioned in para-14 of the case diary. He also submitted that in para-36 of the case diary, there is supervision note of the supervising authority in which he also found the case to be true against the petitioner and directed the I.O to submit charge. 5. Heard the parties and perused the impugned order. The place of occurrence has been mentioned in para-14 of the case diary. He also submitted that in para-36 of the case diary, there is supervision note of the supervising authority in which he also found the case to be true against the petitioner and directed the I.O to submit charge. 5. Heard the parties and perused the impugned order. Admittedly the seized material 150 grams was Bhang which clearly transpires from FSL report. As per the definition of Cannabis (hemp) Bhang will not come under the purview of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. 6. The learned counsel for the State while arguing the matter has also referred to Section 29 which relates to abatement and Section 35 which relates to presumption of culpable mental state. 7. I am not in agreement with the submissions of the learned APP on the ground that no material has been placed by prosecution that the petitioner is involved in dealing with the cultivation and/or selling of the Ganja which is fruiting tops of the cannabis plants (excluding the seeds & leaves not accompanied by the tops). In the present case, the material which has been seized is Bhang which is a leaf of plant cannabis sativa and the same is excluded from the definition of Ganja as contained in Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act. 8. The learned trial court even referring to F.S.L report dated 24.04.2012 has held that there is sufficient material to proceed in the case and finally framed charge in the case which has been annexed with the interlocutory application. 9. In my opinion, upon consideration of records of the case and facts including F.S.L report, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused as such the order framing charge dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehar in N.D.P.S. Case No.6 of 2012 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case no.39 of 2012 is set-aside. 10. In the result, the instant revision application is allowed. Revision allowed.