JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and the HCGP for respondent State. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.6 before the trial Court, who has been arraigned as accused subsequently while filing the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 20(A)(b)(i)(ii) and (c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused Nos.1 to 5 were apprehended and in the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, they have stated that the petitioner herein used to sell the ganja seeds to them for cultivation. On the basis of the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner has been impleaded as accused No.6. The petitioner also filed an application before the Special Court under section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the alleged offence and the same came to be rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the application filed under section 227 of Cr.P.C. , the petitioner has invoked the proviso under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order dated 19.1.2017 passed in Special Case No.55/2015. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the name of the petitioner was not found in the complaint and only based on the statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, he has been arraigned as accused No.6. Since they made the statement that this accused used to supply ganja seeds to the other accused persons and except the voluntary statement of the co-accused, there is no any other material to implicate the petitioner. The Court while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him, also considered the statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Since they have stated that they have purchased ganja seeds from the petitioner and in order to prove the said fact there is no any corroborative evidence to implicate the petitioner and in the absence of material, it amounts to abuse of Court process if the proceedings against the petitioner is continued and hence prayed this Court to quash the proceedings. 6. 6. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also in his argument contended that his name was not found in the complaint and only on the say of accused Nos.1 and 2, he has been implicated as accused No.6 and nothing has been recovered form this petitioner and there is no material against this petitioner to proceed against him and hence prayed this Court to exercise the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against this petitioner. 7. Per contra, the HCGP in his argument has contended that to the tune of 130 k.gs. of ganja was recovered from accused Nos. 1 to 5, which values about more than Rs. 1,30,000/- and during the course of investigation the other accused persons have revealed that they have purchased ganja seeds from the petitioner and he was supplying seeds for cultivation of the ganja and he is the culprit and he was not available for investigation and he was absconded and later he filedan application before the trial Court for bail and he was enlarged on bail and there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and hence section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. 8. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also the HCGP, this Court has to examine whether continuing the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to miscarriage of justice and whether this Court can exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the name of the petitioner was not found in the complaint and only during the course of investigation the other co-accused persons have revealed the name of this petitioner that the petitioner was supplying ganja seeds for cultivation. The police have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet and whilefi ling the charge sheet this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.6 and on perusal of the charge sheet, a specific allegation is made that this petitioner/accused was supplying ganja seeds to accused Nos.1 to 5. The petitioner also filed an application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him for the offence alleged against him. The petitioner also filed an application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him for the offence alleged against him. The Court below while rejecting the application observed that, on the basis of the statement of other accused, a case has been registered against the petitioner and further observed that from the date of registration of the case, the petitioner was absconding and he was not traceable till-filing of the charge sheet and further observed that the Investigating Officer had no opportunity to interrogate the accused Nos.3 to 6 and while filing the charge sheet also the police have mentioned that accused Nos.3 to 6 were absconding. The accused No.6 i.e., this petitioner herein was secured by the Court below and further observed that the charge sheet reveals that the Investigating Officer has made an attempt to apprehend the accused No.6 but he was absconding and the accused No.6 appeared before this Court and filed the bail application and he was enlarged on bail. 10. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was supplying seeds and purchasing the crops from the farmers and the very transaction is an illegal transaction and the same is observed in the order and he might have taken care to protect himself and further observed that if the accused No.6 is discharged in such a serious offence, then much prejudice will be caused to the prosecution and formed an opinion that at this juncture it is not a fit to discharge the accused for the heinous offence. 11. The main contention of the petitioner's counsel is that except the statement of co-accused persons, there are no other material and there is no dispute with regard to the seizure of ganja to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- amounting to 130 k.gs., and during the course of investigation the co-accused revealed the name of the petitioner that he was supplying ganja seeds to cultivate and he used to purchase the same from the cultivators. 12. 1,30,000/- amounting to 130 k.gs., and during the course of investigation the co-accused revealed the name of the petitioner that he was supplying ganja seeds to cultivate and he used to purchase the same from the cultivators. 12. For having taken note of the seriousness of allegation made against the petitioner that he was supplying ganja seeds and procuring the same, the Court below while rejecting the discharge application has assigned the reasons and applied its mind in coming to the conclusion that the allegation made against the petitioner is serious in nature and that too a heinous offence has been committed and he was indulged in encouraging the persons, who are involved in illegal cultivation of ganja and at the time of considering the case, while discharging, the Court also cannot take the evidence whether it ultimately comes to an end on conviction or acquittal only to see the prima facie material and whether the Magistrate has applied judicial mind while taking cognizance and rejecting the application filed under section 227 of Cr.P.C. The proviso of section 482 is not a rule but it is only an exception and that too only to examine whether it causes miscarriage of justice if the proceedings has been continued against the petitioner. 13. For having taken note of the allegations made against the petitioner that he was supplying ganja seeds to others and co-accused, they themselves have made the statement during the course of investigation that the petitioner used to supply the same, this Court do not find any grounds to invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C. to exercise its discretion to discharge the accused from the offences alleged against him and the same requires a full-fledged trial to arrive for a conclusion. 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected. In view of disposal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also rejected, as they do not survive for consideration.