Charge framed in the case was bad in law was “Bhang” allegedly recovered from the accused did not fall within the definition of “Hemp” contained in S. 2(D)(ii) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997-FIR was silent about the weighing and sealing of the recovered material at the spot-Mashirs were the subordinates of the complainant-Prosecution evidence suffered from material discrepancies which had been ignored by the Trial Court-Accused was acquitted in circumstances.