Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, `Cr.P.C.) prays for quashing FIR No. 308 dated 9.8.2003 registered under Sections 15 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, `Act), and Sections 420, 468, 469, 471 and 474 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, `IPC), with Police Station, Samana, District Patiala. It has further been prayed that all the proceedings consequential to the FIR held against the petitioner be also quashed. 2. The translated version of the FIR has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-1 and the same reads as under :- "To The S.H.O., Police Station Samana, Today I Inspector along with S.I. Balbir Singh, HC Chajju Singh 627, CI Tehal Singh 1947, CII Bakhtawar Singh 2568, C. Raj Singh 1415, C. Jagjeet Singh 3496, Mohinder Singh s/o Teja Singh Jatta, r/o Naya Gaon in Govt. Gypsy No. PB-8E-2292 driven by Nachhattar Singh 548 along with Police force of Naya Gaon Police Post. A.S.I. Darshan Singh, HC Harpreet Singh 593, SPO Malkeet Singh 884 in private vehicle were present at Dharamheri checking point on Naya Gaon to Cheeka Road in the area of village Dharam Heri in connection with patrolling and search of suspected persons. At about 11.05 A.M. one Canter bearing No. DL-1LB-2247 came from the side of Cheeka, which was being driven by a Hindu gentleman and two persons were sitting beside him. On suspicion, Canter was got stopped, which was covered with polythene tirpal and tied with rope. On suspicion, Canter was checked after opening the tirpal. Then gunny bags of poppy husk were seen in the Canter. Out of which some bags were opened and poppy husk was seeing from them. These gunny bags were kept in front side and on their back side gunny bags of choker were kept. Two persons who were sitting on the dala of Canter, also came down and when they came to know that police has found poppy husk, they ran away in the fields, who could not be apprehended even after chase. The names of persons sitting in the Canter came to known as Ranjit Singh alias Kashmir Singh r/o Safidon, Resham Singh r/o Sarola, P.S. Guhla and the names of the persons sitting on the dala came to known as Bhola Singh, Sukha Singh, r/o Sarola. The names of persons sitting in the Canter came to known as Ranjit Singh alias Kashmir Singh r/o Safidon, Resham Singh r/o Sarola, P.S. Guhla and the names of the persons sitting on the dala came to known as Bhola Singh, Sukha Singh, r/o Sarola. Ranjit Singh came to know as owner of the Canter and poppy husk. From the Canter, 12 bags of poppy husk and 24 bags of choker and from the secret cabin made in the Canter, 18 bags of poppy husk were recovered. Recovered 30 bags of poppy husk were marked as 1 to 30 and from the each gunny bag two samples of 250 gms-250 gms each were separated as sample and marked as 1 to 2 as per the number of gunny bags. On weighing 34 kg. 500 gm. poppy husk was recovered from each gunny bag. 60 samples pullandas of poppy husk weighed 250 gms. each and 30 pullandas of poppy husk weighing 34 kg. 500 gms. each were sealed by me/Inspector with my seal of JS. Sample seal was prepared and handed over to Mohinder Singh witness. The above said poppy husk, Canter, tirpal and rope were taken into police custody vide a separate farad. Farad was signed by the witnesses. The above said accused Ranjit Singh @ Kashmir Singh, r/o Safidon, Bhola Singh, Resham Singh, Sukha Singh, R/o Sarola and as per the RC of the Canter, owner Jagdish Singh son of Sher Singh r/o H.No. 154, Old Seema Puri, Shahdra, Delhi and the Canter driver has committed an offence u/ss 25/61/85 N.D.P.S. Act and 15/61/85 of N.D.P.S. Act, by keeping poppy husk in their possession and by transporting poppy husk in their Canter without any permit. So, Ruqa in writing was sent to P.S. for registration of case against above said accused through C-1 Tehal Singh 1947. After registration of the FIR, number of the case may be sent to me. Special reports may be issued and senior officers may be informed through W/M. I am busy in investigation at the spot. Sd/- S.H.O. Police Station Samana." 3. A perusal of the FIR shows that name of Ranjit Singh @ Kashmir Singh, resident of Safidon has been specifically mentioned and he was allegedly owner of the Canter and poppy husk. The recovery of poppy husk of commercial quantity was made. The aforementioned Ranjit Singh is alleged to have filed away. Sd/- S.H.O. Police Station Samana." 3. A perusal of the FIR shows that name of Ranjit Singh @ Kashmir Singh, resident of Safidon has been specifically mentioned and he was allegedly owner of the Canter and poppy husk. The recovery of poppy husk of commercial quantity was made. The aforementioned Ranjit Singh is alleged to have filed away. 4. The petitioner has alleged that he is not the person who is alleged to have committed the offences disclosed the FIR. He appears to have requested to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala for holding an inquiry claiming that he was innocent. The inquiry was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patiala by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. In the inquiry, the petitioner is said to have been found innocent which has now been submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police. A copy of Inquiry Report dated 29.10.2003 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Thereafter challan has been presented and name of the petitioner continues to be mentioned therein as is evident from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., Annexure P-3. On an application filed by a co-accused, Joginder Singh, the Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala held another inquiry and Inquiry Report dated 17.3.2004 has been placed on record. Referring to earlier Report dated 29.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Police (D) has held that when the poppy husk was recovered from the Canter, no one was arrested at the spot and the petitioner was found as innocent on the basis of alibi because the petitioner was in hospital at the relevant time. The conclusion of the Superintendent of Police (D), Patiala in his Report dated 17.3.2004 reads as under :- "From my till date secret and open investigation, witnesses of the spot Gram Panchayat Sarola, inquiry from the Investigating Officer and from the recorded statement, I have reached on the conclusion that at the time when the poppy husk was recovered from the Canter, no body was arrested at the spot. D.S.P. (R), Patiala has held Ranjit Singh as innocent in the inquiry conducted by him in this case. The basis of that report is that when the recovery was affected, at that time, he was in hospital. D.S.P. (R), Patiala has held Ranjit Singh as innocent in the inquiry conducted by him in this case. The basis of that report is that when the recovery was affected, at that time, he was in hospital. During inquiry, it was told by the Gram Panchayat Sarola and the witnesses that on the day of recovery, Sukha Singh was present in the village. During inquiry, Panchayat of village Sarola has also clarified about Resham Singh and Bhola Singh that they have no concern with this recovery but no sold (solid ?) evidence was produced before me except the common statement regarding Resham Singh and Bhola Singh. To clear this fact, I perused the case file, conducted inquiry from Jassa Singh Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Samana and A.S.I. Darshan Singh and recorded their statements. When asked about the registration of Canter, then Inspector Jassal Singh told that the RC of the Canter had been found forged, who was directed to search the real owner of the vehicle from the chassis number and engine of the Canter and after joining the real owner in the investigation, the real accused be searched and after finding sufficient evidence, they be arrested." 5. On account of the fact that the petitioner failed to appear before the Court, an order has been passed by the learned trial Court on 24.4.2004 declaring the petitioner along with many others as proclaimed offender. The aforementioned order as produced by the petitioner reads as under :- "Present : Shri G.S. Grewal, Addl. P.P. for the State Accused Resham Singh in custody. Proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was executed against Sukha Singh, Bhola Singh, Jagir Singh, Jasvir Singh and Ranjit Singh by Nirmal Singh Constable on 9.3.2004 and 20.3.2004. His statement to this effect was recorded. Period of 30 days has elapsed but the accused supra have not appeared, therefore, Bhola Singh, Sukha Singh, Jagir Singh, Jasvir Singh and Ranjit Singh accused are declared proclaimed offenders in this case. An application has been moved for discharge of Resham Singh accused on the ground of his innocence in this case. Let notice be given to the Investigating Officer of this case for 29.4.2004. Till then Resham Singh accused be kept in judicial custody. Judge, Special Court, Patiala 24.4.2004." 6. An application has been moved for discharge of Resham Singh accused on the ground of his innocence in this case. Let notice be given to the Investigating Officer of this case for 29.4.2004. Till then Resham Singh accused be kept in judicial custody. Judge, Special Court, Patiala 24.4.2004." 6. The other co-accused, Resham, had filed an application for his discharge but the same has been dismissed on 8.6.2004 and charge under Section 15(c) of the Act read with other sections of IPC has been framed against Resham Singh. 7. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner after perusal of the FIR nor any evidence has been collected indicating the guilt of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also referred to the findings recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) on the directions issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala dated 29.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) and argued that the petitioner has been totally found to be innocent. On that basis, he deserves to be discharged by this Court. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length, I have not been able to persuade myself to accept the contentions raised by him. It would be necessary to make a reference to Section 15 of the Act which reads as under :- "15. Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw. - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of a licence granted thereunder, produces, possesses, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State, sells, purchases, uses or omits to warehouse poppy straw or removes or does any act in respect of warehoused poppy straw, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees : Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees." 9. A perusal of Section 15 read with definition of Section 2 (XVII) and (XVIII) of the Act makes it evident that the act of possessing, transporting etc. A perusal of Section 15 read with definition of Section 2 (XVII) and (XVIII) of the Act makes it evident that the act of possessing, transporting etc. of poppy husk/poppy straw in contravention of any provision of the Act, rule, order or condition of license would constitute an offence under Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, there are allegations against the petitioner that he is owner of the Canter and the papers concerning registration have been found to be forged, it cannot be concluded by this Court that Ranjit Singh, the present petitioner is also known as Kashmir Singh who has been named in the FIR or he is a person different than the one, named in the FIR. These questions look for answer to the evidence which is required to be led. At this stage, this Court cannot record a finding for/or against the petitioner that he is the same person named in the FIR. Apart from the aforementioned controversy, it is patent that the Canter with commercial quantity of poppy husk has been intercepted and the petitioner is alleged to have fled away from the spot. The basic ingredients of possessing or transporting poppy husk being in contravention of the Act stand fulfilled. Moreover, the petitioner is a proclaimed offender. His prayer for quashing FIR would not be just and fair once he has failed to repose faith in the administration of justice. Moreover, it has been repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court that the power to quash FIR would be exercised only in `rarest of rare cases. The aforementioned observations have been made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 (SC) : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Similar principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand, 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 759 (SC) : 1996(2) SCC 37 and in the case of State v. Navjot Sandhu, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 860 (SC) : 2003(6) SCC 641. 10. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner is not connected with the commission of the offence has also not impressed me because it is a matter of evidence whether Ranjit Singh is the same person as the petitioner or a different person. At this stage, it cannot be concluded either way. 10. The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner is not connected with the commission of the offence has also not impressed me because it is a matter of evidence whether Ranjit Singh is the same person as the petitioner or a different person. At this stage, it cannot be concluded either way. The question of alibi can also not be considered at this stage because that too would require adducing of evidence by both the sides. The report of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural) cannot constitute basis for either discharging the petitioner or for quashing FIR. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.