Short Note : 1. This revision by the accused-applicant is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No. 42/1977, arising out of the judgment dated 23.2.1977 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 4213 of 1976, convicting the applicant under section 9 (a) of the Opium Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it has not been proved that the applicant was in conscious possession of the opium found in the container. According to him the applicant denied that the luggage was his and there is no evidence that in fact the luggage belonged to the applicant. He also submitted that the prosecution witness Kalusingh did not support the prosecution and he deposed that on the platform the applicant denied that the luggage was his. The submission of the learned counsel is not well founded. In the railway compartment itself when Ramprasad (PW-1) asked the applicant about the luggage he replied that the luggage contained honey. Although a suggestion was made to Ramprasad (PW-1) that the applicant denied that the luggage was his. Ramprasad denied this suggestion. It was not further suggested to Ramprasad that even though the applicant denied that the luggage was his he compelled him to take the luggage and get down on the platform. If the luggage did not belong to the applicant it is difficult to appreciate why he would get down along with the luggage. Ramprasad (PW-1) has been believed by the Courts below. From the entire statement of Ramprasad (PW-1) there does not appear any ground why he would falsely implicate the applicant with the offence. He has been believed by the Courts below and there is no ground for taking a different view. On appreciation of the evidence the Courts below have come to the conclusion that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the opium found in the container was in possession of the applicant and there is no reason for interference with the findings of the Courts below in this revision. Revision dismissed.