JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgement of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner dated 31.5.1982 whereby he has confirmed the order passed by learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bikaner dated 27.2.1979 who has convicted the accused under section 9A of the Opium Act and was sentenced to six months S.1 with a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month's S.1. 2. Brief facts which give rise to this petition are that Sampuran Singh, S.I . Bikaner City received a telephonic call that one Champalal was carrying two gunny bags of opium containing 19 kg. 13.50 gms. opium in a bus no.RRM 1476 coming from Churu to Bikaner. On this information he along with party arrived and on checking found that bags were laying on the roof of the bus. On enquiry, it was revealed that the incriminating articles belonging to the petitioner, were seized and samples were taken and sealed. The accused was arrested and arrest memo was prepared. The petitioner was handed over to the police who registered a case under section 9A of the opium Act. After Investigation the petitioner was challaned. The accused pleaded not guilty. The production has examined 8 witnesses. After conclusion of the trial the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. The accused petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed on 315.1982. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence on record, that the petitioner had knowledge that bags contain opium and further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and has placed reliance on Ram Ratan v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1249 , and Harish Chandra v. State, 1981 Rajasthan Cr. Cases 240 , 4. Mr. V.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that the accused petitioner has been rightly convicted, so no interference is called for. 5. I have heard Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S.Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The word used 'possession' in Section 9 of the Opium Act connotes conscious possession and there would be no possession when there is no proof that the petitioner had knowledge. 6. In Ram Ratan v. State (supra) six bags containing 48 kg. B. Advani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S.Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. The word used 'possession' in Section 9 of the Opium Act connotes conscious possession and there would be no possession when there is no proof that the petitioner had knowledge. 6. In Ram Ratan v. State (supra) six bags containing 48 kg. opium were recovered from the store room of the house of the petitioner when he was out to Veshnodevi, their lordships of Supreme Court observed that there are some materials in record in this case to cause suspicion against the appellant that probably he was aware of the nefarious, activities which were going on in this house by storing huge quantity of opium but then by mere suspicion no conviction could be maintained. There is nothing to indicate that quantity of opium recovered from the house was in conscious possession of the appellant or that even the house was in possession as tenant. 7. In Harish v. State it has been observed that the prosecution could not succeed in proving that the house from which the opium, recovered was in exclusive possession of the petitioner at the time of the recovery, and that the petitioner had knowledge that the opium was lying wrapped in a piece of paper in a tin inside the room of his house. 8. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that they recovered contraband article opium from the exclusive possession of the petitioner and that he had knowledge that alleged articles contain opium. In the instant case Sampuran Singh, P.W. 1 has categorically stated that he has recovered two bags from the roof of the bus and the contraband articles were not in possession of the petitioner. As per his own statement, he has not recovered opium from the exclusive possession of the petitioner but found from the bus going from Churu to Bikaner when about 30-40 passengers were on board, therefore, in view of the discussion the orders passed by learned courts below deserve to be set aside. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 31.5.1982 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner and dated 27.2.1979 of the Additional Munsif Judicial Magistrate No.1, First Class, Bikaner are set aside. The accused-petitioner Champalal is acquitted of the offence under section 9A of the Opium Act. 9. In the result, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 31.5.1982 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner and dated 27.2.1979 of the Additional Munsif Judicial Magistrate No.1, First Class, Bikaner are set aside. The accused-petitioner Champalal is acquitted of the offence under section 9A of the Opium Act. He is already on bail so his bail bonds are discharged.Revision allowed. *******