JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 9th December 1980 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, by the judgment dated 19th September, 1979 and 27th October, 1979 convicting the accused petitioners for the offence under sections 4/9 of the Opium Act sentencing them three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on information was given to Kalyan Singh of Police Station Raipur to the effect that opium in huge quantity is likely to be brought in Kota side from Indore and on receipt of this information, the Sub Inspector prepared a memo and led ambush on Indore Kota Road. Alongwith him was also his staff and they started checking all the trucks, which were passing through that road. It has been alleged that at about 2.30 A.M. in the night they saw a truck bearing registration No. PUQ 1904, which was stopped by the police checking party. The truck was being driven by Mahendra Singh, Balvendra Singh and Balbir Singh were sitting by the side of the driver. The truck was loaded with machinery goods. Sub-inspector Police and 3 labourers from village Raipur get the entire luggage unloaded and underneath they found 6 gunny bags full of opium behind the cabin of the driver. The gunny bags were unloaded and weighed the opium and they were found 155.600kg. in weight. 30 grams of opium was taken out from each of the bags as sample and sealed. The accused petitioners were arrested and after investigation a charge sheet was submitted for offence under section 4/9 of the Opium Act. The accused petitioners were charged for the offence under section 4 read with section 9 of the Opium Act. The accused petitioners denied the charge and claimed to be tried. As many as 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Thereafter the accused petitioners were examined and they denied all the charges levelled against them. It was further stated by the accused petitioners that they have been falsely implicated and that they had no knowledge of opium in the truck. 3. The evidence produced by the prosecution was of three categories. Thereafter the accused petitioners were examined and they denied all the charges levelled against them. It was further stated by the accused petitioners that they have been falsely implicated and that they had no knowledge of opium in the truck. 3. The evidence produced by the prosecution was of three categories. One was regarding the unloading of the truck i.e. the evidence of the labourer and another set of witnesses was consisted of the members of the police party and the third is regarding the motbir in whose presence the document has been prepared and the persons of the sales tax chowki. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution was startling worth and he did not find any such discrepancy so as to discard the prosecution case, therefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused petitioners as indicated above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar but without any success. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners vehemently argued that mere transport of contraband opium is not sufficient to sustain the conviction under section 4/9 of Opium Act and there was no iota of evidence that the accused petitioners were in know of the fact that they were transporting contraband opium in the truck. It has been further argued that the courts below have decided this point against the accused petitioners merely on the basis of surmises. The first circumstance relied upon by the Sessions Judge is that huge quantity of opium was recovered from the truck occupied by the petitioners and the recovery necessarily leads to inference that the petitioners knew it well about the nature of the goods which were loaded in their truck. It has been further argued that the aforesaid circumstance did not necessarily lead to an inference that the petitioners know that they were transporting contraband opium. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the accused petitioners have been rightly convicted by the trial court. It has been further argued that the aforesaid circumstance did not necessarily lead to an inference that the petitioners know that they were transporting contraband opium. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the accused petitioners have been rightly convicted by the trial court. He further submitted that admittedly the opium was found in the truck and it necessarily leads to this conclusion that the accused petitioners were in know of the fact that they were transporting opium and they were in possession of huge quantity of opium. He further submitted that the High Court under exercise of its power of revision should not interfere in the concurrent finding of fact merely because in the opinion of the High Court a different conclusion can be drawn on the basis of evidence on record. 6. I have given my serious consideration to the rival contentions. It is undoubtedly true that generally the High Court in revision will be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. But at the same time if it is found that the finding has been arrived at contrary to the well established principles of law or where there is no evidence to support the finding or where the finding arrived at is perverse, or such as no reasonable man could have arrived at on the evidence produced or where there is a misreading of evidence or where the method by which the lower court has dealt with the evidence makes it so doubtful where the finding is correct or that if the finding is allowed to stand it will amount to miscarriage of justice, in all these circumstances the High Court will interfere rather in these circumstances it becomes the legal obligation of the High Court to interfere in the findings arrived at by the courts below. In the present case the contention is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence against the accused petitioners that they themselves loaded the opium in the truck or that they purchased the opium or they actively did any act either to bring the opium from one place to another or to have a direct control over the opium which was loaded in the truck. PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 are the witnesses who unloaded the truck and found opium in the truck. PW 1, PW 2, and PW 3 are the witnesses who unloaded the truck and found opium in the truck. PW 4 and PW 5 are the police employees. PW 6 is the person who brought scale and the witnesses. The opium was weighed before PW 7 and PW 8. PW 11 is the person who took the sample. PW 12 is the attesting witness of Ex.8. PW 16, PW 17 and PW 18 did not support the prosecution at all and that they were witnesses in order to prove that the truck was loaded before them and at that time the accused petitioners were present. PW 9 has also stated that he also brought the scale and called the attesting witnesses. PW 10 and PW 13 are formal witnesses. 7. Looking to the entire evidence of the prosecution it has been fully proved that the truck in question which was driven by the accused petitioner Mahendra Singh and where in accused Balbeer Singh and Balvendra Singh were also sitting by the side of the driver, was stopped and checked by the police party and the huge quantity of opium was found loaded in the truck and the same was kept underneath the heavy machinery. It has also been proved that the truck was unloaded, and the opium was seized in order to bring home the offence under section 4/9 of the Opium Act. One of the essential ingredient is that the possession of the opium should be conscious or that the accused petitioners had knowledge that opium is loaded in the truck and they are transporting opium from one place to another. The prosecution has to prove the knowledge and possession both. The learned trial court held the knowledge and possession of the accused petitioners for the opium in question on the ground that the truck was driven by one of the accused petitioner and other two accused persons were sitting by the side of the driver and that the truck contained heavy carrates and 6 bags of opium were found beneath it and that the opium was kept just behind the driver cabin. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances the learned trial court held that the above facts ruled out the possibility of throwing the opium in the truck by some person. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances the learned trial court held that the above facts ruled out the possibility of throwing the opium in the truck by some person. It has been further held that the manner of concealment and the place both would provide strong position that the accused petitioners had knowledge of the opium. 8. This is an admitted fact that the truck was loaded at Indore and the accused petitioners were not owner of the goods and it was known to the investigating officer that who was the owner of the goods loaded in the truck, it was therefore obligatory on the part of the investigating officer to have examined the owner of the goods, which was loaded in the truck or the persons who have loaded the truck at Indore. After examination of such witnesses it could have come on record that what sort of goods was loaded in the truck and by the aforesaid evidence it could have come on record that only the machineries were loaded in the truck at the initial stage, then the inference could have been drawn against the accused petitioners that the opium was subsequently loaded in the truck by the accused petitioners or with their connivance and in that case the accused petitioners could have been held responsible for the aforesaid offence and it could have been inferred that the accused petitioners had either loaded the opium themselves or they had the knowledge that the opium in question has been loaded in the truck. In this way the prosecution failed to bring the relevant evidence on record. Merely because a huge quantity of opium was recovered from the truck and which was driven by the accused petitioner Mahendra Singh and by the side of him other two accused petitioners were sitting, inference cannot be drawn that the accused petitioners were in possession or control over the opium that was lying beneath machines. Similarly, the recovery of huge quantity of opium cannot be led to this conclusion that the petitioners had the knowledge that opium is also there in the truck. Therefore there is no evidence sufficient in the eye of law to convict the petitioners under section 4/9 of the Opium Act. Similarly, the recovery of huge quantity of opium cannot be led to this conclusion that the petitioners had the knowledge that opium is also there in the truck. Therefore there is no evidence sufficient in the eye of law to convict the petitioners under section 4/9 of the Opium Act. In these circumstances of the case no presumption could legitimately be drawn that the driver of the truck and the persons sitting by the side of the driver were in possession of every thing loaded in the truck and nor could it be sufficiently inferred that the accused petitioners were in conscious possession or control of the opium found in the truck. 9. The revision petition is therefore accepted. The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar are set aside and the accused petitioners are acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offence under section 4 read with section 9 of the Opium Act. The accused petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. They need not surrender.Revision accepted. *******