The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and that the determination of guilt or innocence should be left to the trial Court.

Tashi Rabstan, J.:-

(A) 561-A No. 277/2014

1. Petitioner-accused has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, for short CrPC) for quashing the charges framed against him by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban vide order dated 25.02.2014 in FIR No. 02/2014 registered at Police Station Banihal under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, N.D.P.S. Act), and the proceedings drawn in the said case. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused through his father, namely, Ghulam Mohammad Malik on the ground that he is judicial lock-up for the last more than six months and has authorized his father to file the instant petition. The facts as gathered from the petition are that on 1.01.2014 the petitioner-accused was travelling in Mahindra vehicle bearing registration No. 4959-JK22 which was heading towards Srinagar from Jammu. During traffic checking, it was alleged that 180 bottles of Lupi-cough and 690 bottles of Sposmo Proxyvon were recovered from the bag of petitioner-accused. FIR No. 02/2014 came to be registered at Police Station Banihal against the petitioner-accused under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act After completing the investigation, Challan was presented before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban. It is contended that the Challan does not disclose the commission of offence under N.D.P.S. Act. Further, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined for the last more than six months. It is also contended that the investigating authorities have referred the seized contraband for chemical analysis and expert's opinion. Further stand of the petitioner is that even as per the communication of expert the seized contraband does not fall under N.D.P.S. Act and the same can be sold on license by anyone. Thus, the contention of petitioner is that the trial Court was not justified in framing the charges against the petitioner under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. Further, the charges have been framed by the trial Court without complying with the mandatory provisions of law as laid down in Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the very existence of Narcotic Drugs is lacking.

2. State was put on notice in this petition, but despite several opportunities the respondents have failed to file objections. However, Mr. Chopra, learned Government Advocate stated at the Bar that he adopts the objections filed in 561-A No. 239/2014. His statement is taken on record.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered the rival contentions meticulously and perused the record of trial Court.

4. The precise ground taken by the petitioner is that the Challan presented before the learned trial Court does not disclose the commission of offence under the N.D.P.S. Act nor the alleged seized contraband falls under the said Act. Further stand of the petitioner is that the learned trial Court while framing the charges has failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XXIII and Section 268 of Cr.P.C. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner is communication dated 04.02.2014 addressed to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Banihal by Assistant Controller Drug, Udhampur (Annexure 'C to the petition). It has also been mentioned therein that the seized contraband does not come under Narcotic and can be sold by licensed Drug Dealer under the supervision of qualified person on prescription of registered Medical Practitioner/Doctor.

5. On the contrary Mr. Chopra, learned Government Advocate submitted that the present case is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the petitioner-accused through his father. He stated that during police checking of vehicles near Jawahar Tunnel, Banihal, 185 bottles of 100 ml each of Lupic of and 40 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Capsules were recovered from the possession of petitioner-accused. He thus stated that as the petitioner-accuse