JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision petition assails the order of discharge dated 22.11.2018 of respondent/accused passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as Trial Court) in case File No. 17/Spl Ch titled “State versus Mehmood Malik” arising out of a FIR No. 78/2018 registered in Police Station Chenani for the offences under section 8/20/21 NDPS Act. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.2018, the accused was intercepted by the police party of Police Station, Sudhmahdev and on search he was found carrying 140 capsules of Tramadol Hydrocloride. Thereupon, contraband sample was drawn and forwarded to Forensic Report, which has reported that that exhibits were subjected to various chemical tests and examinations which revealed that exhibits detected tramadol hydrochloride which is narcotic analgesic. Accordingly, a case for commission of offences under sections 8/20/21 of NDPS Act against the accused/respondent was registered at Police Station, Chenani. It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused/respondent that the accused was in illegal possession of contraband for the purpose of sale to youngsters. 3. The learned Trail Court after hearing the Public Prosecutor and defense counsel and considering the material before it at the stage of framing of charge-discharge, discharged the respondent-accused of the allegations leveled against him in FIR, by observing that material is insufficient for framing of charge. The grounds taken by the Trial Court for discharging the accused of offences are that section 8 of the NDPS Act prohibits possession of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance whereas the FSL report revealed that seized material detected Tramadol Hydrochloride nowhere includes as Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance in the notification no. 1055(E) dated 10.10.2001 as amended from time to time. It was also observed that section 21 and 22 would be applicable in case manufactured drug found exceeds certain quantity and final investigation report nowhere laid as to what is the weight of the contents of drugs and mixture laid in each capsule nor even the FSL Authorities have specified as to how much content of tramadol hydrochloride in found present in each capsule. It was further observed by the Trial Court that in terms of notification S.O 3448(E) dated 13.07.2018 issued by Ministry of Finance, Govt. It was further observed by the Trial Court that in terms of notification S.O 3448(E) dated 13.07.2018 issued by Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, the tramadol hydrochloride has been declared as manufactured drug under section 3 of NDPS Act, however, for prosecution against the accused under section 8 of NDPS, the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance should be notified under section 2 of NDPS Act. 4. The revision petitioner-state has challenged the impugned order of discharge on the grounds tailored in the petition. It is contended in the petition that Trial Court has failed to consider the material before it which prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable offence. It is stated that standard of test which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge. At the stage of charge/discharge the trial court has not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial the trial is sure to end in his conviction. 5. I have heard and considered the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-state and perused the file. 6. During the hearing of this revision petition, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Dy. AG, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-state, failed to answer the query raised by the court as to what was the quantity/weight of the seized contraband so as to know whether it pertains to small quantity or for commercial use as the trial court has observed that even the final investigation report or FSL report has not said anything about the weight or quantity of seized contraband and offence under section 21 and 22 of NDPS Act could be made in respect of manufacturing drugs in case it exceeds certain quantity. It would be wrong to assume that seized contraband exceeds the quantity up to which a person can keep it medicinal purposes on the prescription of the doctor. It would be wrong to assume that seized contraband exceeds the quantity up to which a person can keep it medicinal purposes on the prescription of the doctor. So far as offence under section 8 of NDPS Act is concerned, for that, the possession, manufacturing, sale or other dealing of only those drugs is made punishable which are notified under section 2 of NDPS Act and contained in notification 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 as amended from time to time, whereas, tramadol hydrochloride which is a manufactured drug is added by way of notification S.O 3448(E) dated 13.07.2019 by central government in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 3 of NDPS Act. 7. This court is aware of the fact that Tramadol, a painkiller pharma drug, has now been declared a “psychotropic substance” under NDPS Act, by Central Government and its sale in the country is now strictly monitored after the Narcotics Control Bureau had reported that it is being internationally smuggled, and had possible supply links to the global terror group ISIS. It is abused on wide scale by terrorists and smugglers to suppress pain and boost strength injury and is also known as Fighter Drug. However, in the present case it unknown even prima facie as to whether the accused was carrying the Tramadol Hydrochloride for medicinal purposes or for misusing it for commercial purpose or otherwise. It is the result of shabby investigation carried out by the police in the present case which failed to unfold the truth or basic facts which were essential for framing the charge against the accused. 8. In the backdrop of present case it is apt to say that in exercising the power of framing charge/discharge under criminal procedure code, the judge cannot merely act as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of evidence and documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on (see in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366 ). The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with the view of finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with the view of finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence, as it cannot be expected at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states that gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense (see in Naranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi v Jeetander Bim Raj, AIR 1990 SC 1962 ). 9. The revision against discharge order is maintainable as is settled by a decision of supreme court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girhari Lal Sapru AIR 1981 SC 1169 that order discharging the accused of offence terminates the proceedings and, therefore, it is revisable under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C (section 435 of state Cr.P.C). However, we find that revisions and appeals are resulting even from the cases which are devoid of legal merit. The consequence thereof is that this Court is being burdened with completely frivolous and legally untenable revisions and appeals. Filing of cases which are devoid of legal merit in not only a strain on judicial time, but is also an unwarranted burden on the State exchequer. In the present case, as discussed above, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-state was unable to convince this court as to commission any illegality or material irregularity by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order of discharge of respondent-accused, as such, the revision petition in hand is devoid of any merit, and is, accordingly, dismissed.