JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated July 24, 1972 of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur upholding the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur dated September 5, 1972 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner under S. 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of the payment of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The prosecution story, as disclosed at the trial, is that P.W. 7 Bhanwarlal Station House Officer, Police Station, Nathdwara received an information that contraband opium was being dealt with on the shop of Madhav Lal. He in the company of P.W. 2 Raghuraj Singh and P.W.l Bhopal Singh rushed to the shop of the accused-petitioner Madhav Lal. He found the accused weighing a bag on his balance. The bag was opened from which 400 Grams of opium wrapped in a plastic cover was found. The opium was seized in the presence of the Motbirs vide Ex. P.1. The sample of opium was taken which was sealed in the presence of the Motbirs. The petitioner along with two other accused viz. Tikamlal and Kapur Ram were arrested and a challan was submitted in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Udaipur. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined seven witnesses, P.W.l Bhopal Singh, P.W.2 Raghuraj Singh P.W.3 Shiv Shanker, PAV.4 Nanalal, P.W.5 Ramchander, P.W6 Kishensingh and P.W.7 Bhanwarlal, Investigating Officer of the case. The accused denied their complicity in the crime and the petitioner examined two witnesses in support of his plea. The other two accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Magistrate found the defence evidence unreliable. Placing reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses the learned Magistrate held that all the three accused challaned before him had connections in dealing with the opium and ail of them were in possession of the opium at the time of seizure of the same. He further held that it was in the knowledge of the accused-petitioner that the article which was being weighed on his balance was opium. He further held that it was in the knowledge of the accused-petitioner that the article which was being weighed on his balance was opium. On the basis of the above finding he convicted all the three accused under section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced each of them to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. The convicted accused challenged the verdict of the trial court before the Sessions Court but without any success. 3. The two accused viz. Kapur Ram and Tikam Lal felt satisfied with the judgment of the appellate court, and have not come up before this Court whereas the accused-petitioner Madhav Lal has challenged his conviction and sentence by this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has challenged the finding of the courts below regarding the conscious possession of the opium by the accused-petitioner. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgements of both the courts below. 5. The only question which needs determination is as to whether the petitioner can be considered to have been in conscious possession of the opium. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence worth the name on the record to hold that the accused-petitioner Madhav Lal was in know of the fact that the article which was placed on his balance by Tikam Lal for weighment was opium. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention to the recovery memo and the statements of P.W. 2 Raghuraj Singh and P. W. 1 Bhopalsingh, who stated that when they reached the shop of the accused, petitioner they saw Tikamlal placing a bag on the balance. After opening the bag and the wrapper it was discovered that the article which was being weighed was opium, The finding of the appellate court and the contention of the learned counsel for the State, that as the shop-keeper is not expected to weigh the bag of a beggar, it should be presumed that the accused-petitioner while weighing the bag was in conscious possession of the opium, and was privy to the transaction, is based only on conjectures. In most cases the answer may be in affirmative, but not necessarily so in all cases. 6. In most cases the answer may be in affirmative, but not necessarily so in all cases. 6. It has come in the evidence of Raghuraj Singh that when the Police Party reached on the spot, the accused petitioner Madhav Lal stated that he had weighed the be because the other two accused viz. Tikamlal and Kapur Ram had asked him to weighs it. P.W. 7 Bhanwarlal, Investigating officer of this case also admitted in his cross-examination that opium was wrapped in a plastic bag, which was further covered by a cloth and was placed in a bag and the mouth of which was found tied. Thus the only evidence on the record is that a bag was found on the balance of the accused and on opening of which opium was found wrapped in plastic paper. There is not a scintilla of evidence against the accused that he was in conscious possession of opium, and there are reasonable grounds to hold that the accused-petitioner might have weighed the bag without knowing as to the contents of the same, in the case on hand there is undoubtedly ground for grave suspicion regarding possession against the accused-petitioner but the element of reasonable doubt is not excluded. On the proved facts it would not be safe to conclude that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the opium with the two convicted accused viz. Tikam Lal and Kapur Ram. Relying solely upon the bare fact that bag containing the incriminating article (opium) was found on the balance of the accused-petitioner without proof of any additional or extraneous facts to establish any connection with the accused and the opium is not sufficient to discharge the burden which lay upon the prosecution that the accused was in conscious possession of the opium. 7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. I extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-petitioner, and set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge framed against him. He is on bail, and need not surrender to the bail bonds. *******