JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. This judgment shall govern the disposal of this appeal as well as Criminal Appeal No. 1537/2003, Saju Joshep @ Milton and another vs. State of M.P. as both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order. Appellants have been convicted u/s 8/20(b)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, vide impugned judgment dated 25-7-2003 passed by the Special Judge, Sehore, in Special Case No. 28/2000. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. On 14-8-2000, Assistant Sub Inspector R.S. Dubey, who was in-charge of police station Nasrullaganj in the absence of Sub-Inspector B.S. Rajpoot, got information on telephone that in a white Tempo Trax vehicle contraband article (Ganja) was being transported from Rehati towards the Nasrullaganj. The information was recorded in writing. A report to that effect was also recorded in Rojnamcha. The superior officer was apprised about the same. The A.S.I, collected some policemen and proceeded to the main. They sighted white Tempo Trax No. MP09-8948 which was then driven by appellant Buddhulal. Appellant Narendra was sitting in the front seat by the side of driver Buddhulal and appellant Saju Joseph and Surendra were seated in the back seat of the vehicle. They stopped the vehicle, checked it and found two gunny bags placed inside the vehicle. When the gunny bags were opened, contraband article (Ganja) was found concealed therein. The weight of the ganja found in one gunny bag was 16kg 200 grams and the weight of the ganja found in other gunny bag was 4 kg. 900 grams. Out of the seized Ganja 48 grams of ganja was separately seized from each gunny bag and four packets of 24 grams were prepared separately. The vehicle was also seized. Appellants and Surendra along with seized article were brought to the police station Nasrullaganj, and crime was registered. Seized ganja was handed over to Malkhana incharge for its safe custody. The aforesaid sample was sent to Government Opium Alcoholied Works, Neemuch, for analysis. According to the report of J.M. Pamecha (PW. 12), Assistant/Chemical Examiner, the seized article was found to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants and Surendra for the aforesaid offence and a charge was framed for the same. The aforesaid sample was sent to Government Opium Alcoholied Works, Neemuch, for analysis. According to the report of J.M. Pamecha (PW. 12), Assistant/Chemical Examiner, the seized article was found to be Ganja. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants and Surendra for the aforesaid offence and a charge was framed for the same. Appellants and Surendra abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. During the trial, Surendra jumped his bail and he was declared absconded. After concluding the trial, learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty and as such convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. I have heard Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Buddhulal, Shri B.K. Khare learned counsel appearing for appellants Saju Joseph and Narendra and Ku. Alka Pandya Government Advocate with Shri Ajay Tamrakar learned counsel for the State and gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellants led me through the record and contended that the learned trial Judge erred in holding the appellants guilty of the offence charged and submitted that the conviction and sentence of appellants is bad, improper and illegal. As against this learned counsel for State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. A.S.I., R.S. Dubey (PW. 7) has stated that on 14-8-2000 he was posted as A.S.I, at Police station Nasrullaganj. As Station House officer, B.S. Rajpoot was out of station, he was incharge of the police station. At about 8.20 A.M. he received the information on telephone that contraband article is being transported in a white Tempo Trax from Rehati towards Nasrullaganj. He recorded the information in writing. A report to that effect was also recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 764. The witness has also stated that he had reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of the evidence or facility for the escape of the offenders. He recorded the ground of his belief in Panchanama Ex. P. 1. A copy of this panchnama was sent to S.D.O.P. Budhni. Thereafter, he along with PSI, B.K. Malviya, Head Constable Jitendra Singh and two constables went to the spot. Panch witnesses Makhan Singh and Mahesh Singh were also called. They sighted the Tempo Trax, which was stopped and checked. He recorded the ground of his belief in Panchanama Ex. P. 1. A copy of this panchnama was sent to S.D.O.P. Budhni. Thereafter, he along with PSI, B.K. Malviya, Head Constable Jitendra Singh and two constables went to the spot. Panch witnesses Makhan Singh and Mahesh Singh were also called. They sighted the Tempo Trax, which was stopped and checked. It was found that appellants were present in the vehicle and two gunny bags were placed inside the vehicle. When they were opened, Ganja was found in both the bags. Accused persons were informed of their right to be searched in presence of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The witness has also stated that the appellants gave their consent for the search by A.S.I. Both the gunny bags were recovered vide Ex. P. 8 and P. 9 and thereafter seized article was weighed. The weight of the ganja in one gunny bag was found to be 16kg. 200 grams and that of other was found to be 4 kg. and 900 grams. Out of the seized article 48 grams of ganja from each gunny bag was separately seized and four packets of 24 gram each were separately prepared. The vehicle was also seized as per Ex. P. 10. The accused persons were arrested and they were brought to the police station, where FIR was drawn as per Ex. P. 18. The witness has also stated that the seized article was handed over to Malkhana incharge for its safe custody. Panch witness Mahesh Yadav (PW. 4) and other police officials have supported the version of A.S.I.R. S. Dubey. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that in the present case, requirement of section 42 of the Act has not been complied with. It was submitted that requirements of section 42 is two fold. First is that the police officer should take out the information in writing and second is that he should send forthwith a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. The information which was sent to the official superior has not been filed in the case, which deprived the Court of the material to ascertain what was the precise information which police officer got before proceeding to stop the vehicle. The contention cannot be accepted. The information which was sent to the official superior has not been filed in the case, which deprived the Court of the material to ascertain what was the precise information which police officer got before proceeding to stop the vehicle. The contention cannot be accepted. A.S.I.R.S. Dubey has specifically stated that the information which was received on telephone was taken out in writing and its copy was sent forthwith to the S.D.O.P.A carbon copy of the information sent to the S.D.O.P. has been filed in the case and the same has been proved as Ex. P. 19. Therefore, it cannot be said that compliance of section 42 of the Act has not been made. Learned counsel for appellants next contended that narcotic drug was recovered from the gunny bags which were lying in the vehicle, appellant had no knowledge that those gunny bags contained contraband article, therefore, they cannot be convicted for transporting or possessing contraband article. When the appellants were present in the vehicle and the narcotic drug was seized from the gunny bags lying in the vehicle, in view of section 35 of the Act, the burden of proof is on the appellants to prove that they had no knowledge about the fact that those gunny bags contained such a substance. The standard of such proof is delineated in sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act as "beyond reasonable doubt". Relying on Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, , learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants have discharged their burden as per the standard delineated in sub-section (2) of section 35. It is true that burden of proof casted on the accused persons u/s 35 can be discharged through different modes. One is that they can rely on the material available in the prosecution evidence, next is that they can elicit answers from prosecution witnesses through cross-examination. They may also adduce other evidence when they are called upon to enter on their defence. Appellants have failed to prove that they had no knowledge about the fact that those gunny bags contained contraband article. On an appraisal of the entire evidence. I do not find any material on the basis of which it can be said that the appellants have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had no knowledge about the contents of gunny bags. Sub-section (1) of section 35 provides for statutory presumption. On an appraisal of the entire evidence. I do not find any material on the basis of which it can be said that the appellants have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had no knowledge about the contents of gunny bags. Sub-section (1) of section 35 provides for statutory presumption. Use of the word "shall" makes it incumbent on the Court to raise a presumption regarding existence of a mental state. Appellants have failed to prove that they had no culpable mental state and also failed to discharge their onus. Normal rule is that the accused is not required to rebut a presumption beyond reasonable doubt but preponderance of possibilities will not be applicable in presence of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act. From the evidence of A.S.I.R.S. Dubey, which is duly corroborated by the evidence of Panch witness Mahesh Yadav and others police personnel including Prem Narain (PW. 1), Omprakash (PW. 2), Tukaram (PW. 3). Head constables Jitendra Singh and Rajendra Bhargava, it is proved that appellants were transporting the contraband article in gunny bags contents of which were suspected to be ganja. From the report of J.M. Pamecha (PW. 12), as per Ex. P.31, the contents which were suspected to be Ganja has been confirmed to be contraband article (Ganja). The evaluation made by the trial Court of the evidence of material witnesses does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. The trial Court carefully wrote the judgment, exhaustively considered the evidence and on an analysis reached to the conclusions which in my opinion, are preeminently reasonable and support the order of conviction. Aforesaid being the position regarding the evidence given by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellants. I do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The trial Court has considered and appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and there is no reason for interference with the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, their conviction in hereby maintained. So far as sentence is concerned, the learned trial Judge has awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000.00 to each of the appellant. The trial Court has considered and appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and there is no reason for interference with the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, their conviction in hereby maintained. So far as sentence is concerned, the learned trial Judge has awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000.00 to each of the appellant. In the instant case, the date of incident is 14-7-2000 and thus, the incident has occurred prior to the coming into force of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 (No. 9 of 2001). The amendment has come into force w.e.f. 2-10-2001 and therefore, this Amendment Act could not have been made applicable to the present case as the incident has occurred prior to coming into force of this Act. Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of offence. The first part of Clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution prohibits the retrospective operation of any law creating an offence so as to cover acts done prior to the passing of the law. The maximum sentence provided u/s 20 of the Act as on the date of the offence was for a term which may extend to five years. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is modified and reduced to R.I. for four years each. Looking to the nature of the offence, the sentence of fine awarded to appellants does not call for any interference and as such, the same is hereby maintained. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants to the extent as indicated above. Final Result : Allowed