JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.:- We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No.647-DB of 2005, Criminal Appeal No.868-DB of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.38-SB of 2006 with a common judgment, as they arise out of the same judgment/order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. 2. The learned trial Court vide its judgment/order dated 2.8.2005/5.8.2005 convicted Joginder son Hardwari and Anil son of Banwari Lal under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced them to undergo 15 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three years. The learned trial Court also convicted Sanjay son of Suraj Mal alias Surja under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of fine to further undergo R.I. for two years. 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by ruqa Ex.PF sent by Inspector Vijay Kumar SHO, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, to Om Parkash MHC; on the basis of which FIR Ex.PG was recorded. Inspector Vijay Kumar stated, that he along with HC Dev Karan, Constable Kamal Singh and Constable Krishan Kumar were going into government vehicle No. HR-22B-1180 towards Village Bighar turning, Fatehabad, in connection with patrolling. A secret informer stopped his vehicle and told him, that truck No.RJ-31G-1460 loaded with poppy straw was coming from Bayawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan) and was to reach at the hotel of Pirthi Sarpanch resident of Baropal. Joginder Singh son of Hardawari Lal was the driver of the truck and Anil Kumar son of Banwari Lal was sitting with him. Information was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad through Constable Kamal Singh and Shri Ashok Kumar Sheoran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Fatehabad was also informed at his residence. When the police party was going towards the hotel of Pirthi Sarpanch near the bus stand of Badopal, Dharam Singh SI, HC Kailash Chnader, HC Maya Ram, Constable Dhian Singh, Constable Jai Bhagwan and Constable Ved Parkash were joined in the police party. A naka was laid near the hotel of Pirthi Sarpanch on the GT road. After some time, truck No.RJ-31G-1460 came from the side of Hisar. It was stopped. A naka was laid near the hotel of Pirthi Sarpanch on the GT road. After some time, truck No.RJ-31G-1460 came from the side of Hisar. It was stopped. Both driver of the truck and the person sitting with him were made to come down. The driver of the truck disclosed his name as Joginder Singh son of Hardawari Lal and the person sitting on the side disclosed his name Anil Kumar son of Banwari Lal. A written notice was served upon Joginder Singh, that some narcotic substance or poppy straw was suspected to be in his truck. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was present on the spot, gave an offer to Joginder Singh and Anil Kumar as to whether they wanted to be searched in his presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Joginder Singh reposed confidence in the DSP. Similarly, Anil Kumar also reposed confidence in the DSP. Both of them put their signatures on the different notices given to them. Inspector Vijay Kumar on the instructions of DSP Ashok Kumar carried out the search. 30 bags of onions were lying in the upper portion of the truck and underneath them, 70 gunny bags full of poppy straw were recovered. After taking two samples of 100 grams each from each gunny bag, the gunny bags weighed 39 Kgs. 800 grams individually. Seal bearing “VK” (impression) of Inspector Vijay Kumar was put on the samples taken and on the gunny bags. The DSP also put his seal “AK” on the samples and the gunny bags. Permit of the truck was taken into possession, which was in the name of Sanjay Bishnoi. Seal was handed over to Dharam Singh SI. Inspector Vijay Kumar tried to join independent witnesses, but he was not successful. Joginder Singh driver and Anil Kumar stated, that Sanjay son of Surja Ram was the owner of the truck and he had knowledge of bringing of the poppy straw. The truck was hired for Rs.35,000/-. In total 28 quintals of poppy straw was recovered. 4. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box DSP Ashok Kumar PW1, SI Balwan Singh PW2, Dharam Singh SI PW3, Om Parkash MHC PW4, Constable Ashok Kumar PW5, ASI Kailash Chand PW6, ASI Jagbir Singh PW7 and Vijay Kumar Inspector PW8. 5. In total 28 quintals of poppy straw was recovered. 4. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box DSP Ashok Kumar PW1, SI Balwan Singh PW2, Dharam Singh SI PW3, Om Parkash MHC PW4, Constable Ashok Kumar PW5, ASI Kailash Chand PW6, ASI Jagbir Singh PW7 and Vijay Kumar Inspector PW8. 5. Learned counsel for appellant Sanjay Bishnoi has argued, that the statement of co-accused of Sanjay i.e. Joginder and Anil that Sanjay is the owner of the truck, cannot be taken into consideration. Merely being the owner of the truck would not mean, that appellant Sanjay was the one, who had sent both appellants Joginder and Anil to deliver the poppy husk to Pirthi Sarpanch. Apart from the permit, which is in favour of appellant Sanjay, no other document has been put on record to show, that he is the owner of the truck. Statement of Parmanand Stamp Vendor DW5 and the affidavit, which has been attested by D.K.Gupta Advocate/Notary DW4 shows, that the truck had been sold by appellant Sanjay to someone else. 6. Learned counsel for appellant Joginder and Mr. Dhanda (Amicus Curiae) for appellant Anil have stated, that appellants have been falsely implicated. Appellant Joginder sat down for his Senior Secondary Examination at Hisar on 10.5.2001 and the practical examination. He gave his practical examination from 12.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Recovery is of 11.5.2001 at 6.40 a.m. The distance between Hisar and the place of recovery from where he started from Rajasthan is not less than 24 hours journey. Virender Singh Principal, Capt R.C.Senior Secondary School, Hisar DW1, has stated, that Joginder had given his examination. 7. It was alleged, that Joginder was driving the truck, but no driving licence was seized. 30 bags of onions were recovered. Appellant Joginder did not know, that there was contraband lying under these onions. 8. The contraband belonged to Pirthi Sarpanch. Learned counsel for appellant Anil, Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate (Amicus curiae) has adopted the arguments put forward by learned counsel for appellant Joginder stating, that appellant Anil did not have the knowledge of the contraband being under the onion bags. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that in their testimony in Court, DSP Ashok Kumar PW1, Dharam Singh SI PW3 and Vijay Kumar Inspector PW8 have stated, that they apprehended truck No.RJ-31G-4160, which was carrying 28 quintals of poppy straw. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that in their testimony in Court, DSP Ashok Kumar PW1, Dharam Singh SI PW3 and Vijay Kumar Inspector PW8 have stated, that they apprehended truck No.RJ-31G-4160, which was carrying 28 quintals of poppy straw. The search was conducted in the presence of DSP Ashok Kumar PW1. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and convincing. There are no material contradictions in their statements. Appellants Joginder and Anil Kumar were apprehended at the spot. Joginder was driving the truck, while Anil Kumar was sitting by him. All the legal formalities, as envisaged in the NDPS Act, were complied with. Defence has failed to make any dent in the procedure by which the contraband was taken into possession. The link evidence has also gone unrebutted. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 11. Ashok Kumar DSP PW1 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that at about 12.45 a.m. (midnight), Vijay Kumar Inspector PW8 came to him and requested him to accompany him on a raid, as secret information was received to the effect, that a truck carrying poppy husk was coming from the side of Hisar. A naka was laid and after some time, truck No.RJ-31G-1460 came, which was stopped. It was being driven by appellant Joginder, while appellant Anil was sitting on his side. Notice was served under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Necessary legal formalities were completed. On the search of the truck, 70 bags of poppy husk each weighing 40 Kg. were recovered. Two samples of 100 grams each were taken. He (PW1) has further stated, that the contraband was to be delivered to Pirthi Sarpanch of Village Badopal. Appellant Joginder stated, that they had charged Rs.35,000/- for transportation. He has further stated, that no efforts were made to arrest appellant Sanjay. 12. Similarly, Dharam Singh SI PW3, the Investigating Officer, has reiterated what Ashok Kumar DSP PW1 has stated. He has further stated, that the narcotics were being transported on the instructions of Pirthi Sarpanch of Village Badopal, which had been brought from Bayawar (Rajasthan). Apart from this witness stating, that the truck was owned by Sanjay, nothing has been brought on record to prove the ownership of the truck. He has further stated, that the narcotics were being transported on the instructions of Pirthi Sarpanch of Village Badopal, which had been brought from Bayawar (Rajasthan). Apart from this witness stating, that the truck was owned by Sanjay, nothing has been brought on record to prove the ownership of the truck. He (PW3) has stated, that the registration certificate of the truck was not recovered in his presence. 13. Shri Vijay Kumar Inspector PW8 has stated, that he received secret information that truck No. RJ-31G-1460 was coming from Hisar side. Joginder Singh was driving it, while Anil Kumar was accompanying him. The truck was coming to the hotel of Pirthi Sarpanch, Badopal. Nowhere it has been mentioned in the secret information and in the statement of the witnesses, that appellant Sanjay was the owner of the truck, when the truck was recovered. The Investigating Officer Dharam Singh SI PW3 did not look into this aspect of the case, as to whether Sanjay sold the truck or not. Evidence has brought on record by Sanjay vide statements of D.K.Gupta Advocate/Notary DW4 and Parmanand DW5, who have stated, that the truck had been sold by appellant Sanjay. 14. Appellant Sanjay has been falsely implicated. He deserves the benefit of doubt. Crl. Appeal No.38-SB of 2006 filed by appellant Sanjay is allowed and his conviction and sentence is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. If he is in custody, he be released forthwith. Case against appellants Joginder and Anil have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Their conviction stands intact. Sentence of both appellants Joginder and Anil is on the higher side. Their sentence is modified/reduced to 10 years R.I. They are directed to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. With the above modification in sentence, Crl. Appeal No.647- DB of 2005 filed by appellant Joginder and Criminal Appeal No.868-DB of 2005 filed by Anil are dismissed. ————————————