JUDGMENT - M.S. APTE, J.:---The appellant in this case has been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for an offence under section 66-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 2. The appellant, it appears, runs a canteen in a room of Vikas Bangle Company situate at Peru Baug, Goregaon. The case for the prosecution was that on some information received, S.I. Ratnakar Chogle of the Goregaon Police Station raided the room in which the accused was running a canteen. He was accompanied by Panchas and staff. The accused was present and some kerosene oil tin and a trunk was found in the room. It was stated that in the trunk four packs of opium wrapped in cotton and plastic bag were found. The total weight of opium so found was 11 kg. 300 g. A sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser who certified that the material was opium. Hence the accused was prosecuted. 3. The accused did not dispute the finding of the contraband article in the room. But he stated that one Babulal through his servant Rajaram had shorty before the raid kept this trunk in his canteen and he was not at all aware as to what it contained. According to him, Babulal was to take away the trunk on the same day after sometime but before he came, the police raided the canteen and seized the article. In other words, shortly stated, his defence was that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband article. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge against the accused, lee evidence of Sub-Inspector Chogale alone. Although his evidence showed that this quantity opium was seized from a trunk in the canteen in possession of the accused, there is nothing in his evidence to show that the accused was in conscious to show that the accused was in conscious possession thereof or that the theory advanced by the accused was in any way unbelievable. It appears from his cross-examination that the accused on being asked to open the trunk or the tins, without any hesitation readily opened them. The conduct of the accused prima facie shows that he was not aware as to what the tins or the trunk contained. Normally if he had been conscious of the nature of the contents of the tins he would have hesitated or would have avoided to open to them. 5. The conduct of the accused prima facie shows that he was not aware as to what the tins or the trunk contained. Normally if he had been conscious of the nature of the contents of the tins he would have hesitated or would have avoided to open to them. 5. This on the evidence as it stands, it is difficult to hold that the accused was proved to have been inconcious possession of the contraband article. It is not enough for the prosecution to bring home the charge to the accused merely to show that he was in possession but it must be shown that he was in conscious of such article in order that the accused should be convicted of the offence under section 66-A. The result, therefore, is that the prosecution having failed to show that the accused was in such conscious possession, it is difficult to uphold the conviction of the accused in as much as it is doubtful whether he was in conscious possession of the contraband article and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 6. The appeals is, therefore, allowed, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge made against him. Fine if already recovered be refunded to the accused. Bail bond stand cancelled. -----