Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated january 8, 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Barnala, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Secs. 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act.1985 (for short the Act) as follows: 2. The prosecution case as stands unfolded from the testimony of D. S. P. Narjinder Singh (P. W.6)is that on December 18, 1994 at about 7 A. M. he along with AS. I. Malkiat Singh. A. S. I. Jagdeep Singh. H. C. Jaswinder Singh and other police officials was on patrol duty in area of village Farwahi. Amarjit Singh. an independent witness had also been joined with the patrolling party. On suspicion they intercepted a truck bearing registration No. DL-IG 9415 coming from the side of Sekha. The truck was being driven by Jarnail Singh accused, while Karam Singh (second driver) and Gurmukh Singh (cleaner) were sitting by his side. After disclosing his identity. D. S. P. Nari,nder Singh searched the truck and 176 bags of poppy husk weighing 39 Kgs. each, were recovered there from. Two samples of 250 gms. each were taken from each of the 176 bags. Separate parcels of the samples were prepared and sealed. Each sample was also separately marked and taken into possession. On the basis of the ruqa sent by the D. S. P. . formal first information report (Ex. PM/i) was recorded at Police Station Kotwali. Barnala on the same day at 10.35 P. M. The D. S. P. prepared the rough site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. 3. Accused Jarnail Singh. Karam Singh and Gurmukh Singh were charge-sheeted under Sec.15, while Amrik Singh (owner of the truck) was charge-sheeted under Sec.25 of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Hans Raj. Senior Clerk. Registration and Licensing Authority. Simla (P. W.1 ). H. C. Nazir Mohd. (P. W.2 ). Constable Tirlok Singh (P. W.3), Raj Kumar (P. W.4), S. l. Nachhattar Singh. S. H. O. . Police Station. Barnala (P. W.5), D. S. P. Narjinder Singh (P. W.6) and also the report of the Chemical Examiner. 5. When examined under Sec.313. Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. (P. W.2 ). Constable Tirlok Singh (P. W.3), Raj Kumar (P. W.4), S. l. Nachhattar Singh. S. H. O. . Police Station. Barnala (P. W.5), D. S. P. Narjinder Singh (P. W.6) and also the report of the Chemical Examiner. 5. When examined under Sec.313. Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. Accused Jarnail Singh and Gurmukh Singh, however took the common stand that on 17/12/1994 they were returning from Patiala for village Nandgarh after getting the truck repaired from Paul Diesels. Lower Mall. Patiala, When they reached near Nawan Gaon, they were chased by the Police and were brought to Bhawanigarh and from there they were put in Gypsy and brought to Barnala, where they were falsely implicated. Accused Karam Singh stated that he did not know if the truck in question was ever apprehended and that he did not know driving and had not possessed any driving licence. He further stated that name of accused convicted under Section sentence awarded jarnail Singh karam Singh gurmukh Singh 15 of the Act. Rigorous Imprisonment for 14 years and fine of Rs.1,50,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for 3 years and 6 month each. . Amrik Singh 25 of the Act. R. I. for 14 years and fine of Rs.1,50,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for 3 years and 6 months. he was brought from his village to the Police Station and was involved in the case at the instance of his enemies. Accused Amrik Singh admitted the ownership of the truck and pleaded as under: on 16/12/1994 I had sent my truck with Jarnail Singh (Driver) accused and Gurmukh Singh (Cleaner) accused to Paul Diesel. Lower Mall. Patiala for repairs, When the said accused were returning after repairs of said truck. Police chased the truck and the truck was stopped near village Nawan Gaon and taken to first P. S. Bhawanigarh and then to P. S. Barnala and I was brought by ASI Malkit Singh on 19/4/1994 to P. S. Barnala and implicated me in false case. T 6. In defence the accused examined Sucha Singh (D. W.1 ). Surinder Singh (D. W.2) Constable Gurmeet Singh (D. W.3) and Tejinderpal Singh (D. W.4 ). T 6. In defence the accused examined Sucha Singh (D. W.1 ). Surinder Singh (D. W.2) Constable Gurmeet Singh (D. W.3) and Tejinderpal Singh (D. W.4 ). In addition, accused Karam Singh tendered in evidence certified copy of the order dated December 19.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Patiala in a trial case titled State V/s. Karam Singh for the offence punishable under Sec.15 of the Act, relating to Police Station Samana. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record. Following two questions arise for determination in this case: 1. Whether the accused Jarnail Singh. Karam Singh and Gurmukh Singh were found in possession of 176 bags of poppy husk loaded in truck No. DL-IG-9415 on December 18, 1994 in the area of village Farwahi by D. S. P. Narjinder Singh and. thus, committed the offence punishable under Sec.15 of the Act? 2. Whether accused Amrik Singh, owner of truck No. DL-IG-9415 knowingly permitted the truck to be used by Jarnail Singh. Karam Singh and Gurmukh Singh for the commission of the aforesaid offence, and thus, committed the offence punishable under Sec.25 of the Act? 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that accused Jarnail Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Karam Singh had been arrested on December 17, 1994 and they had been falsely implicated in this case by D. S. P. Narjinder Singh on the next day. Further he contends that Amarjit Singh the alleged independent witness, had not been examined by the prosecution. With regard to the involvement of Amrik Singh (owner of the truck), he contends that he did not have the knowledge as to what was being transported in the truck in question. Thus according to the learned counsel. Amrik Singh accused has wrongly been implicated for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec.25 of the Act Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the Single Judge authority of this Court reported as Gurmail Singh V/s. State of Punjab. Wherein the conviction imposed on the owner of the truck was set aside on the ground that the owner did not have the knowledge as to what was being transported in the vehicle. 9. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Wherein the conviction imposed on the owner of the truck was set aside on the ground that the owner did not have the knowledge as to what was being transported in the vehicle. 9. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The statements of D. S. P. Narjinder Singh (P. W.6), S. I. Nachhattar Singh (P. W.5) and Raj Kumar (P. W.4) are quite consistent, straightforward and trustworthy with regard to the recovery of 176 bags of poppy husk. There does not seem to be any shadow of doubt in their version. If Amarjit Singh has not been examined by the prosecution that does not make, any difference. The evidence of Raj Kumar (P. W.4), who was also an independent witness with regard to the recovery of poppy husk from the truck in question, is quite relevant and reliable. Even the accused could be convicted on the statements of the Police officials only. Now it is settled that the statements of the Police officials cannot be discarded merely because they are from Police Department. In case the version given by the Police officials seems to be natural and trustworthy, the conviction can be recorded even on that basis. 10. Still further, it does not appeal to reason as to why the truck was taken to village Cheeka, which is at a distance of 45 miles from village Nandgarh (village of the owner of the truck) and hot to Kaithal, which is at a distance of 29 Kms from village Cheeka, Kaithal is a district headquarter and many workshops for the repair of the trucks are available there. Thereafter the truck was allegedly taken to Patiala for the repair of the diesel pump. Moreover, it is quite unbelievable that such a huge quantity of poppy husk 176 gunny bags weighing 39 Kgs. each) would be falsely implanted on the accused. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that Jarnail Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Karam Singh had been ,falsely booked for the offence punishable under Sec.15 of the Act is rejected. 11. With regard to the involvement of Amrik Singh accused for the commission of the offence punbhable under Sec.25 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the said accused had rightly been convicted for the said offence. In his statement under Sec.313. 11. With regard to the involvement of Amrik Singh accused for the commission of the offence punbhable under Sec.25 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the said accused had rightly been convicted for the said offence. In his statement under Sec.313. Code of Criminal Procedure, Amrik Singh accused has nowhere stated that he did not have the knowledge that the poppy husk was being transported in the truck. Rather he had taken the stand that the truck in question was sent by him for repair to Patiala through accused Jarnail Singh and Gurmukh Singh accused. On the return journey from Patiala, the truck was allegedly chased by the Police and was apprehended at Nawan Gaon. Thereafter he was implicated in the case on December 19, 1994. Thus, in his statement he has nowhere stated that he did not have any knowledge as to what was being transported in the truck. Onus lies heavily on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he did not have the knowledge at all as to what was being transported therein. The said onus Amrik Singh accused has failed to discharge. Rather from the statement of Amrik Singh the accusing finger points towards his guilt to the effect that he had full knowledge and control over the truck with regard to the purpose for which it was being used by his co-accused. From the statement which he had made at the time of his trial. It becomes apparent that he had connived with his co-accused for the transportation of the poppy husk. In case he had no knowledge that the poppy husk was being transported in the truck then the straightforward plea of Amrik Singh accused would have been that his co-accused had loaded the poppy husk bags in the truck without his consultation and without taking him into confidence. But this is not the plea taken by him. Rather. he has dittoed the stand taken by his co-accused. Therefore. the innocence of Amrik Singh accused is not shown at all. Hence he has rightly been booked for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec.25 of the Act. The authority of Gurmail Singhs case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against all the four appellants. Hence he has rightly been booked for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec.25 of the Act. The authority of Gurmail Singhs case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against all the four appellants. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. The appellants have rightly been convicted for the offence punishable under Secs. 15 and 25 of the Act. 13. However, we feel that the sentence imposed on the appellants is on the higher side. A lenient view is required to be taken so far as quantum of sentence is concerned. We. Therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 14 years to 10 years and sentence of fine is reduced from Rs.1,50,000.00 to Rs.1,00,000.00 each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the appeal falls and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.