Order : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners-accused Shahrukh Khan and Abdul Aslam aggrieved from order dated 16.07.2022, whereby a charge has been framed against the petitioners-accused in Sessions Case No.87/2021 by learned Special Judge NDPS Act, Kota. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by police. He further submitted that Abdul Aslam is father of Shahrukh Khan, and police has allegedly recovered contraband from possession of Abdul Aslam and not from Shahrukh Khan. He also submitted that the motorcycle, on which Abdul Aslam was plying was registered in the name of petitioner Shahrukh Khan and only on ground of a registered owner of motorcycle Shahrukh Khan was charge-sheeted by police. He further submitted that there is no evidence about conspiracy or involvement in transportation of contraband, but still police has filed a charge-sheet against Shahrukh Khan and Abdul Aslam. He also submitted that to frame petitioner-accused for offence under the NDPS Act, it is necessary that there must be some evidence to implicate them, but no such evidence is available on record. He further referred the sample process and submitted that the collection of samples is defective as contraband was recovered from different packets and same was mixed to collect a representative sample. At last, he submitted that petitioner-accused Shahrukh Khan is a student and he is preparing for competitions. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On 02.10.2021, when SHO P.S. Gumanpura, along with police team was on patrolling then he found that Abdul Aslam was riding on a motorcycle and on search from his persona, 4 packets containing Charas was found and after completing the process, FIR No.412/2021 was registered at P.S. Gumanpura (Kota). During investigation, police has summoned vehicle owner Shahrukh Khan and arrested him. After investigation, police has filed a charge- sheet against Abdul Aslam under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act and Shahrukh Khan under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act, but kept pending against Munawar Hussain under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 6. A perusal of entire material including search and seizure memo indicate that no contraband was recovered from dicky or any storage of motorcycle rather the contraband was recovered from pocket of accused Abdul Aslam. A perusal of entire material including search and seizure memo indicate that no contraband was recovered from dicky or any storage of motorcycle rather the contraband was recovered from pocket of accused Abdul Aslam. It is also evident on record that Abdul Aslam and Shahrukh Khan are father and son. There is no evidence to show that petitioner-Shahrukh Khan is involved in any manner in transportation of contraband narcotics. Section 25 of NDPS is reproduced 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. A perusal of Section 25 of NDPS Act clearly indicate that if a person, who is owner or occupier or having control or use, knowingly permits then only he shall be punishable under Section 25 of NDPS Act, thus the act committed should be in knowledge of person who is owner or occupier in control. 8. Herein this case, there is not a single iota of evidence to show that the petitioner-accused Shahrukh Khan has knowingly permitted his father, to use his registered motorcycle for transportation of contraband narcotics from one place to another. In order to frame a charge under Section 25 of NDPS Act, it is necessary that act or omission was in knowledge of Shahrukh Khan. 9. The Trial Court without considering the essential ingredients under Section 25 of NDPS Act has framed a charge against the petitioner-accused Shahrukh Khan. There is neither any recovery or any call communication about seized contraband. 10. Herein this case, a recovery was effected only from Abdul Aslam, and if there is any discrepancy or non-compliance of mandatory provision of law then same is a subject matter of trial and cannot be considered at the stage of charge, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act against Abdul Aslam. 11. 11. Having considered aforesaid, it is apparent on record that there is no evidence to connect Shahrukh Khan in the commission of crime, as the person using his motorcycle was his father and as a born relationship, son cannot refuse his father from use of motorcycle. The prosecution has failed to show that Shahrukh Khan was aware about transportation of contraband, therefore, the order to frame charge against Shahrukh Khan is perverse and illegal. 12. In view of discussion made herein above, the instant revision petition is partly allowed and impugned order dated 16.07.2022 qua Shahrukh Khan is set aside and Shahrukh is discharged from charge under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act, but revision petition qua Abdul Aslam is hereby dismissed and order of charge dated 16.07.2022 qua Abdul Aslam is affirmed. 13. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.