Judgment K. S. GAREWAL and j. JJ. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.355 DB of 2003 filed by Ranjodh Singh and Criminal Appeal No.352 DB of 2003 filed by Kulwant Singh. 2. Ranjodh Singh of Saniyana, District Fatehabad, alongwith kulwant Singh of Nakodar, District Jalandhar, and Jarnail Singh alias Jaila of Bahamanwala, District Fatehabad, were tried by learned Additional sessions Judge, Fatehabad. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated march 31, 2003 found Ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh guilty of having been in possession of 12 bags of poppy husk each containing 40 Kgs which were being transported in truck HYB 3265. Both the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11 years and also to ordered to pay fine of Rs.1.00 lac under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act. Jarnail Singh was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh have challenged their conviction and sentence through these appeals. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on June 15, 2000 SI Dharam singh (PW-8) of CIA Staff Fatehabad was on crime checking duty in rattangarh on the Rattiabudhlada road. ASI Raghbir Singh (PW-7) was also with him. One Manmohan Singh of Ratia met him. While they were engaged in conversation truck HYG 3265 came from the side of Rattia. The truck was being driven by Ranjodh Singh. The truck was stopped. On search being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 12 bags of poppy husk each containing 40 Kgs were found in the truck. These bags had been loaded in the rear portion of the truck. Kulwant Singh and Jarnail singh were seen sitting on the bags. When the truck stopped, Jarnail Singh managed to escape, however, Ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh were arrested at the spot. Report was sent to the Police Station and case was registered. 4. Investigating Officer took out samples of 100 gms each from each of the bags. The samples were sent for analysis at the Forensic Science laboratory. Report of the Laboratory was that the samples were of poppy husk straw (chura-post) of papaver somniferum L. Jarnail Singh was later arrested on June 21, 2000. After competition of investigating the three accused were sent up for trial. 5. The samples were sent for analysis at the Forensic Science laboratory. Report of the Laboratory was that the samples were of poppy husk straw (chura-post) of papaver somniferum L. Jarnail Singh was later arrested on June 21, 2000. After competition of investigating the three accused were sent up for trial. 5. At the trial, charge was framed against the accused under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for having kept in their conscious possession 480 Kgs of poppy straw in 12 bags loaded in truck HYG 3265. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution examined ASI Jai Narain (PW-1), SI Jaipal Singh (PW-2) who testified regarding preparation of the report under Sec.173 cr. P. C. , H. C. Chattarpal Singh (PW-3) MHC at Police Station Rattia on june 15, 2000 testified that SI Dharam Singh had deposited with him 12 samples on that day, the samples were sent for analysis to Forensic Science laboratory, Madhuban on June 21, 2000 through C. Darya Singh (PW-5)and the constable returned to the Police Station on the following day. ASI charan Singh (PW-4) testified regarding the arrest of Ranjodh Singh and kulwant Singh on June 15, 2000. DSP Ashok Kumar (PW-6) testified that he had received a wireless message from ASI Dharam Singh that a truck had been apprehended and was suspected to be carrying narcotics. Thereupon the witness had gone to the spot and had the search conducted under his directions. SI Raghbir Singh appeared as PW-7 and SI Dharam Singh appeared as PW-8. 7. After completion of the prosecution evidence accused were examined without oath under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. Ranjodh Singh gave the following explanation:- "i am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I loaded buffalo calves on 12.6.2000 from the truck union fatehabad for Delhi in the truck HYG 3265. Buffalo calves were unloaded on 13.6.2000 at Delhi and on 14.6.2000 I loaded sand from the area of Bahalgarh near Murthal for taking it to village Ayalki where I unloaded the sand at the house of mahender Singh from where I was apprehended by the police alongwith the truck by SI Dharam Singh and a false recovery was planted upon me by the police. My father was police informer since the last 40 years and I have been falsely implicated in this case under the pressure of other persons who have been prosecuted in heinous cases. " 8. Kulwant Singh gave the following explanation:- "i am innocent. I have been falsely implicated been in this case. I had come to meet my brother-in-law namely Avtar Singh son of Tarsem Singh r/o Ayalki, Tehsil Ratia. On 15.6.2000 I was returning in order to go to my village. I was standing at bus stand Ayalki for boarding a bus then SI Dharam Singh apprehended falsely in this case and implicated in this case falsely. " 9. When called upon to enter defence, the accused examined Sarpanch Om Parkash of Ayalki who testified that that on June 15, 2000 police had come to the house of mahender Singh of his village and taken away truck HYG 3265 alongwith its driver Ranjodh Singh. Mahender Singh appeared as DW-2 to testify that on June 15, 2000 he had taken a truck loaded with sand for the construction of the house at his village. The truck driver was Ranjodh Singh. At 10-30 A. M. the police came to his house and took away the vehicle alongwith its driver. Mahender Singh further stated that he had been made to sign on a document by SI Dharam Singh but did not know for what purpose his signatures had been obtained. He further stated that he had bought the truck of sand from the fatehabad Union for Rs.4200/-. Baldev Singh (DW-3) stated that he was the clerk of Bhaichara Truck/canter Union, fatehabad and had brought the original receipt book. On June 12, 2000 truck HYG 3265 had been loaded with buffalos and calves for Delhi and the goods receipt had been handed over to ranjodh Singh. The truck returned on June 14, 2000 loaded with sand. Amrik Singh (PW-4) father of Ranjodh Singh stated that he had been informing the police regarding commission of crime and helping in detection of culprits and had got many cases of possession of poppy straw, opium, dacoity and terrorism detected and got the accused arrested including a terrorist. He had appeared as a prosecution witness in many cases at Hisar, Fatehabad and Sirsa. He had appeared as a prosecution witness in many cases at Hisar, Fatehabad and Sirsa. When he came to know that his son had been falsely implicated he came to Ayalki and was told that his son had been taken away by the police while unloading the sand at the house of Mahender Singh. Amrik singh further testified that Ranjodh Singh had been falsely implicated as an act of revenge against him by someone in connivance with political high ups. Manmohan Singh (DW-5)that no recovery of any narcotic had been effected from the possession of the accused on June 15, 2006 in the area of rattangarh, Tehsil Ratia in his presence. He further stated that his scooter had been taken into custody by the police at Lali chowk, Ratia because he was driving without a licence. The police told him that his scooter would be released if he signed on some blank papers. He put his signatures on the papers at the instance of the police and his scooter was released but registration certificate of his scooter HRH 6647 was retained. The learned Trial Judge accepted the prosecution version that ranjodh Singh was driving the truck while two persons were sitting in the rear of the truck. When the truck was stopped one of the persons sitting at the back escaped but the other person who was unable to escape was kulwant Singh alias Kanta. Both Ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh had been arrested at the spot. Statements of SI Raghbir Singh and SI Dharam singh were accepted. The defence pleaded by the accused was rejected and the accused Ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh were convicted. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the entire prosecution case was false, no such recovery had been effected from ranjodh Singhs truck. The independent witness with whom SI Dharam singh had been in conversation just before the truck was apprehended was manmohan Singh of Ratia. Manmohan Singh appeared as a defence witness and testified on oath that after his scooter had been impounded by the police for driving without a licence he was made to sign on blank papers to get his scooter released. Furthermore, it was argued that Ranjodh singh got the truck loaded with sand from Fatehabad which was purchased by Mahender Singh for his house. Furthermore, it was argued that Ranjodh singh got the truck loaded with sand from Fatehabad which was purchased by Mahender Singh for his house. Ranjodh Singh was apprehended from that place and implicated in this case since his father had been a police informer for 40 years had got many persons prosecuted in criminal cases. There was pressure from those persons to take revenge against Ranjodh singhs father through his son. 11. It was also contended that the case property had been tampered with as there was no case receipt or seal impression on the 12 gunny bags produced in the court. One bag had been loosely tied with a rope around its opening and did not contain 39.9 Kgs of poppy husk. The weight of this bag was less in comparison to other bags. The above argument was based on the answers given by ASI Raghbir Singh (PW-7) in cross-examination. It was further argued that when Ranjodh Singh was arrested memo of arrest Ex. DB was prepared wherein the name of Mahender Singh (DW-2) was mentioned as the person who was informed of the arrest. From this the argument that was built up was that Ranjodh Singh was arrested from Mahender Singhs house, therefore, the defence version stood corroborated. 12. Counsel has also tried to highlight the contradictions in the number of the road certificates mentioned in Ex. PB (affidavit of HC Chattar pal Singh PW-3) and Ex. PD (affidavit of C. Darya Singh PW-5 ). In these affidavits road certificate (RC) was mentioned as 698 but in the report of the forensic Science Laboratory, RC was mentioned as 618. Therefore, the report did not link up with the road certificate in the present case. We have gone through the record and have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State at considerable length. The prosecution evidence against Ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh is that ranjodh Singh was driving the truck carrying 12 bags of poppy husk while kulwant Singh was sitting on the bags which had been loaded in the rear of the truck. There was a third accused who had managed to escape and was acquitted. The truck was intercepted in the evening on June 15, 2000 by SI dharam Singh (PW-8 ). There was a third accused who had managed to escape and was acquitted. The truck was intercepted in the evening on June 15, 2000 by SI dharam Singh (PW-8 ). The Investigating Officer informed DSP Ashok kumar who also reached the spot, and under the instructions of DSP Ashok kumar, the bags were opened, checked and found to contain poppy husk. Two questions arise in this case. First is whether the truck was intercepted by the police on Budhlada Road or from some other place. And the second is whether the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act should be raised against ranjodh Singh and Kulwant Singh. 13. Ranjodh Singh had not denied the ownership of the truck and the fact that he drove the truck. Ranjodh Singh has tried to build up a defence on the basis of Mahender Singhs name being recorded in the memo of arrest. This document is Ex. DB. It appears that when Ranjodh Singh was arrested the memorandum of arrest was prepared on which Mahender Singh signed in the column meant for "relative who has been informed". It is extremely doubtful if this can be taken to mean that Ranjodh Singh had been arrested from Mahender Singhs house but the entire defence of the accused including his valiant attempt to rebut the presumption of possession is based on the fact that Mahender Singh (DW-2) signed the memorandum of arrest. 14. It is Ranjodh Singhs own case that his father was a reputed police informer who had given prosecution evidence in many cases leading to conviction of many persons under different laws. If this is true then amrik Singh was a person well-versed in the ways of the police. Amrik singh would also know how to create evidence to exploit loopholes in the investigation. It seems that after Ranjodh Singh was arrested, efforts were begun to show that he had been arrested from Mahender Singhs house where he had unloaded sand. Therefore, it is very likely that Mahender singh signed the memorandum of arrest by posing as the relative to be informed, whereas in fact he admitted in cross-examination that Ranjodh singh was not known to him earlier. Either Mahender Singh had actually got sand delivered to his house on that day or he was a partner in the consignment of narcotics. Either Mahender Singh had actually got sand delivered to his house on that day or he was a partner in the consignment of narcotics. However, we are certain that Mahender Singhs story and in fact Ranjodh Singhs version that he had been arrested from mahender Singhs house is utterly false. It is quite obvious that from wheresoever the sand had been loaded, the purpose of transporting sand was to cover the bags of poppy husk and effectively conceal them. 15. The other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was discrepancy between road certificate numbers because at one place number was mentioned as 698 and at another place it was 618. It is obvious that "9" probably resembled "1" when the Forensic Science laboratory report was prepared and for this reason 9 was written as 1. There is also some defect in the case property presented before the Trial Court because one gunny bag had been loosely tied with rope and its weight was less than the other bags. At best it can mean that one of the bags was tampered with but it would certainly not mean that the other 11 bags had also been tampered with. ASI Raghbir Singh (PW-7) did state that gunny bags Ex. P-1 to P-12 do not bear the case receipt or seal impression. These could easily have got obliterated or removed during storage or by a friendly hand at the instance of Ranjodh Singhs notorious father Amrik singh. Therefore, nothing much would turn out on this discrepancy. 16. We are convinced that Ranjodh Singhs truck HYG 3265 was indeed intercepted on the evening of of June 15, 2000 and 12 bags of poppy husk were recovered from the rear of the truck. Ranjodh Singh had given a false explanation. Every driver of a vehicle knows what is being transported in the vehicle. Every taxi driver would know the number of passengers he is carrying and their baggage which is loaded in the boot of the taxi. Similarly, every bus driver is responsible for what is being carried by the passengers of his bus. Every driver of a vehicle knows what is being transported in the vehicle. Every taxi driver would know the number of passengers he is carrying and their baggage which is loaded in the boot of the taxi. Similarly, every bus driver is responsible for what is being carried by the passengers of his bus. In cases of taxi drivers, bus drivers or private drivers they would be certainly be entitled to establish that the passengers from whom the contraband was recovered were not known to him, that he had exercised due diligence in ensuring that were not carrying any narcotics and may even succeed in showing that the narcotics recovered from his vehicle did not belong to him. The case of a truck driver is altogether different. Trucks are not meant to carry passengers but designed to carry goods. The responsibility of a truck driver for the goods carried by him is far greater. He also has the responsibility to prove, in a given case, that the goods do not belong to him but to the consignors of the goods; he was only the innocent carrier who had been engaged to carry the goods from point A to point B. Such a defence may even have a chance of success if the documents covering the goods corroborate the version of the truck driver. However, in the present case the defence raised by the driver of the truck is quite different. Ranjodh Singh does not say that the truck had been hired by his co-accused, the goods belonged to his co-accused and that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bags. Ranjodh Singhs defence is that the truck had been detained from some other place where he had gone to unload the sand. This version is based entirely on the memorandum of arrest ex. DB which is contrived document, result of clever manipulation coupled with fertile imagination. 17. We are convinced that Ranjodh Singh was intercepted on the evening of June 15, 2000 by ASI Raghbir Singh (PW-7) and SI Dharam singh (PW-8) while transporting a huge consignment of poppy husk. The search of the bags had been conducted under the directions of DSP Ashok kumar (PW-6 ). The provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act were fully complied with. There was really no need to raise the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. The search of the bags had been conducted under the directions of DSP Ashok kumar (PW-6 ). The provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act were fully complied with. There was really no need to raise the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. Even though ranjodh Singh had not been specifically asked any question under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that there was presumption of conscious possession of presence of culpable mental state against him, the charge as framed did contain all the ingredients of the offence of transportation in detail. The charge was to the effect that Ranjodh Singh and his co-accused had "kept in your conscious possession 480 Kgs of poppy straw in 12 bags loaded in truck bearing registration No. HYG 3265 without any permit or licence. " Case against ranjodh Singh stood established. 18. However, Kulwant Singhs case was entirely different. He was sitting in the back of the truck from where 12 bags of poppy husk were recovered. He was arrested at the spot. Kulwant Singh belonged to District jalandhar in Punjab and had explained his presence in the area as having come to visit his brother-in-law Avtar Singh of Ayalki Tehsil Ratia. He was standing at bus stand Ayalki when he was apprehended. 19. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kashmir Singh vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.407 DB of 1999) dated February 22, 2006 comes to the aid of Kulwant Singh because it was Ranjodh Singh who was transporting the consignment of narcotics in the truck and was, therefore, in actual possession of the consignment. Kulwant Singh was not in actual possession, his possession could only be treated as constructive possession, at best. However, presumption of possession could be raised against him in terms of Sec.54 of the Act. Unless and until he proves to the contrary, it has to be presumed that he has committed the offence, if he fails to account for the possession satisfactorily. Sec.54 only applies to cases of possession, it would not apply to the production, transportation, import, export, sale, purchase and use of the narcotic. These are the other categories of offences mentioned under Sec.15 of the Act. Sec.54 only applies to cases of possession, it would not apply to the production, transportation, import, export, sale, purchase and use of the narcotic. These are the other categories of offences mentioned under Sec.15 of the Act. Consequently, Kashmir Singhs case would come to the aid of Kulwant singh as he has not been given an adequate opportunity to rebut the presumption under Sec.54 while his statement under Sec.313 cr. P. C. was recorded by being called upon to explain the circumstances which gave rise to the presumption. Similarly, for the same reason Kulwant singh cannot be presumed to be having any culpable mental state to possess the consignment of narcotics on which he was sitting. 20. Resultantly, Ranjodh Singhs appeal is dismissed while appeal filed by Kulwant Singh is allowed. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.